A week or so ago I posted a thread asking why the Devil existed if God was all powerful and such. You gave me answers such as free will and the ability to pick what you want. Devil is jealous of God or such, hes like wtf im leaving and so Gods like ok noob bye and Satan builds himself a fireplace.

Ok, so why are we forced to go to hell if we don't follow his rules? What happened to free will in the ultimate end? He gives it to us for a bit, INTENDING FOR US TO USE OUR FREE WILL, but then we have to suffer if our free will entails anything he doesn't like. Therefore, the concept of free will is bugged in my mind.

EXPLAIN YOU RELIGIONISTS

ya see, god's this hot chick.

And the devil is her ex bf, and he got all bitter, hence evil in the world.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

<3

but seriously

try and convince me

It used to be that God took everyone up into heaven, but now it's crowded so God only lets in the people that he likes. Everyone else has to go to hell. It's okay though, because by all accounts heaven is actually pretty boring. Hell, on the other hand, is kind of like Las Vegas mixed with pre-Katrina New Orleans. It's just one HELL of a party, all the time.

Free Will: If some one pushes you off of a cliff, do you have the free will to decide not to hit the ground? I have no clue exactly how it works, but I'm sure free will is a good bit different from what most people think of it as.

Actually we don't have free will anyways because the universe is deterministic.

Anyone who argues with me about this... well, I guess you can't help it, because you don't have free will.

Thats the thing though, if God is the be all end all know all, can tell you what you're going to from 5 minutes kind of jerk, then you don't have free will. Because then God would be wrong.

Which would suck to be him.

Determinism is a theory. and if determinism is really true, isn't your belief in determinism simply an already determined responce to something else and therefore discountable?

Maybe we aren't.



Maybe we won't exist anymore at the ultimate end. But if we do, then my guess is we will have the freedom we enjoy in this existence.



But if god(s) didn't give us free will, then he/she/it/they would just force us to do what he/she/it/they like(s). Perhaps we don't have free will and he/she/it/they is/are forcing us to do what he/she/it/they like(s) right now.

If determinism is true, then whether I believe in it or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

I believe the idea of free will works like this: we are given a choice, like Adam, to follow/obey God or not. There are consequences either way. The thinking is, if you are God, you can either force everyone to obey you or let them choose to obey, in which case the latter would be the better of the two options.

I've also heard it explained that God has already chosen all of us to be with him in the end, but we decide whether to accept that choice or not.

I'm not an apologist, so I'm sure some of you will tear this to shreds. Such is life.

How do you know that you have free will? Are the thoughts that pop into your head put there by you or are they put there by god(s)? Maybe god(s) is/are controlling everything you do, but he/she/it/they do/does it so cleverly you don't notice it.

I think this is what is causing the big move from "Punishment" to "Reward" in Catholics. Instead of being "punished to hell", you are "rewarded by heaven".

I dunno, I'm not exactly that knowledgable in this.

Not everyone believes that you go to hell for not following rules.

For example, Mormons believe that you go to hell if you have a full knowledge of the glory of God and the atonement of Christ and still deny it and go astray, that you become a son of perdition and are banished to 'outer darkness' which is hell. If you don't follow the rules, and get to God and are like DAMN man I screwed up, depending on the intent you had with not following the rules, you go to different places in heaven. So, if you knew the rules, but were like WTFever, you might go to the bottom of heaven. If you didn't know the rules, or followed what rules you believe to correct, you may go to the top.

But most Christians like the idea of everyone burning to death.

Mormons also believe that if you were a good little boy who married a lot of girls you get your own universe to be god in and forty virgins or somesuch. I dunno. I might have mixed it up a bit with Islam but that's okay because it isn't important.

Looks like Mormons got it right!


I'm no christian, i dont love some bearded chap who supposedly died for someone elses sins 2000 yrs ago.
I commit sin everyday.

But i refuse to believe, that I can be a good person, moral and kind, all that jazz, and still go to hell, simply cos I didnt attend church, hang around with other bible bashers, and preach about some imperfect god that is suppsosed to be benevolent and all powerful.

If a Christian thinks i'm going to hell, regardless of whether I'm good or not, well, I hope he's the one who burns in hell, if there is such a place, which I'm 99% there isnt [at least not in the way traditional Christians think]

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Yes, if only the Book of Mormon hadn't been used as a loose framework so the church founders could rape dozens of teenaged girls with a clean conscience it might be quite the powerhouse religion.

i noticed even Mormons in britain have american accents...

how curious

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Someone I hung out with in high school was sent to England for his missionary work.

...

I guess it's kinda like being sent to Southern Cruzubekistan, only less jungle, no distribution of medicine, and you don't have to help them plant crops or anything.

Of course, in an actual historical context we know the "mission to another country as soon as you turn 18" is really just a ploy to get all of the young men away from the women, who are then quickly snapped up by the church elders. But shhh, it's a secret.

that sucks.

I hope they burn in hell, very ironically!

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Not to mention it was a religion that was only interpreted by ONE PERSON, AND THAT ONE PERSON WAS THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO READ "THE SECRET TABLETS"

If you actually want a somewhat truthful look at Mormonism, watch the South Park on it. You'd think they were just making fun, but when you do some research afterwards, it's quite spot on. The same with the scientoligy episode.

And that one person had a standing criminal record as a confidence man. In fact, to translate the tablets he used the same "magic" beads he used in every con he ever pulled.

It's funny. The OT has a shepherd, the NT has a carpenter, and the Book of Mormon has... a liar and a con artist.
Strange choice there, but God Works In Mysterious Ways.

Actually, the comment which Brigham Young made to which you are referring is often taken out of context.

[quote=Brother Brig]The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.[/quote](Italics Mine)

The key in this statement is the italicised portion. Though the first part seems to say that nobody obtains exaltation without plural marriage, the second part negates this, and meshes more readily with the rest of his teachings. Putting aside wether or not YOU think polygamy is a blessing, some people do and did. In this light (the light of the whole discourse from which this quote is from) it shows that in fact if you were commanded polygamy and do not accept it you cannot become exalted. You did mix it up with Islam, but again, you mixing it up really isn't too important.



If that is the way you see it. Not everyone does. Especially since the total number of wives who were married by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (the two most accused of this 'rape' thing) were exactly three. One was 14 and Joseph did not marry her, he was sealed to her, which accompanied marriage. Although sexual relations were part of some (even most) relationships it was not in that case. Brigham young had several wives between the ages of 17 and 19, but I personally find that less objectionable since I have several friends married to older men. Odd for sure but certainly not rape.

Further evidence is given to my side by the large number of young girls who decline plural marriage with no conequence except in a few cases where that rejection was accompanied by a rejection of the church, resulting in excommunication.



Most 19 (21 in the case of young women) year old missionaries are not sent on humanitarian missions. Older married couples who go on missions however, are more likely to be sent to such a mission. I know, my neighbor has gone on three with his wife.



Actually, in the earliest days of the Church only the older men were permitted to go on missions. This lasted until near the time of the 'Manifesto' which abolished polygamy. Although admittedly several illegal plural marriages were performed afterwards, they were abolished, those responsibly excommunicated, and the buildings in which they took place were torn down.

It's 19, by the way. I sure wish you would research what you are bashing, since you do a lot of it and consequently your personal chances of being wrong are much higher since you do so much bashing, and fewer people will believe someone who gets something really wrong when bashing.



Read, true. See? No. Somewhat conspicuous, but then again, only a handfull of people saw Jesus after he died, so it's really not much sillier than that.



They were actually pretty good. Trey Parker was LDS for a long time. It is accurate in many places, but puts quite an odd light on it. I thought it was pretty respectful, actually, albeit in a South Park way. I don't see how it's any more truthful than any other source.

Every con he ever pulled is an exagerration.

Joseph Smith had one prior arrest (but not conviction) for 'glasslooking'. The situation, which can be seen from several independent journals of those involved (most of whom hated the Church when it was formed) read thus.

Joseph was hired by a man hunting for treasure because he thought Joseph could find treasure for him. Joseph convinced him it was a stupid idea and to go get a job after searching for a while. He turned Joseph in for glasslooking. No conviction.

He DID in fact use the same stone he used there, which he found while digging a well for part of the translation, though at first he used something called the Urim and Thumim, referenced in the Bible as casting lots used to determine yes or no questions by Levite Priests. Later he used no stones.



Joseph was a farmer, actually. Interesting in that it's quite in the same vein as a shepher and carpenter.

Listen, Jon, think about this. Sure people root for you when you smash Gold's face in, but honestly, what are you doing? Telling people that he used a stone for the whole translation of the book when he didn't, especially when he hadn't used it in other cons (his own cons, anyway) and then calling him a liar and a con artist, seems just mean spirited to me. Why do you do this? Honestly, what is the purpose of conveying anything in such a harsh way when it isn't called for? I'm sure nobody else will step up but I know a lot of people agree with me.

By the way, everyone but Jon, everything I have told you are things I got in trouble for talking about when I was in Church. Then we got a new bishop and there was no more OMG DONT SAY THAT. It's not church wide.

What I have been saying is what I have found onmy own. The Church would never tell me these things in church because they are not really relevant (some are, but not most) unless you have an interest in them. I have to say this because Jon will say that I have been spoon fed lies.

How are we expected to believe in him if we have no material proof? If he is real why doesnt he come down, do something cool, prove himself, and go back up? I could believe it then.

That defeats the whole purpose of believing something.

Sometimes we have proof.

That's doesn't make sense. The entire reason to believe anything is through having proof.

Good point. I misspoke, I think.

I mean faith. Religion is based on faith and having proof defeats the purpose of having faith.

Sorry about that.

That's nonsense. An essential part of being human is believing/feeling something that is outside normal experience.

Wow, Steven must read our forums, because the latest BoaSaS is:

http://www.boasas.com/?c=595

Why MUST it be based on faith?

If it was based on evidence it would be science.

Actually, mostly, because isn't a religion that doesn't rely on faith. They may assert truth, but to believe that is faith.

That is the primary reason why it's pointless to be religious. Notice that every 'miracle' to ever occur usually happens in writing, long ago, or both. This is simply because as time passes by, it gets easier to imbelish the story.

I would also like to point out to the religious folk that faith is detrimental in every situation. The less things you take on faith, the better off you are. It means that when you put your trust in something, it's because you know how it works. Besides, I know very few religious individuals who believe in a random religion because of complete blind faith.

You guys don't believe in your religion because blind faith is a good quality. You believe because your parents trained you to (this is very likely). Another possible reason is that you had some 'spiritual experience.' For some reason, you really want to believe that this 'experience' you had indicates that your religion is true, when it was really either a hallucination or some kind of appeal to emotion. Besides, if blind faith is so important, why would you look for signs such as those to provide evidence that your religion is correct?

I don't understand why the religious twist faith around to make it appear as a good quality. Oh wait. Yes I do. It's because it's easier to keep people under your influence that way.

I don't think exercising our free will in a manner that doesn't fall in line w/ general Christian beliefs is looked down upon by God, actually. And I am, to an extent, Christian. I tend to think that my God, however, is pleased by the fact that I'm using this gift of a mind or w/e to make my own decisions, and choose my own path. I'm sure he finds me much more interesting and (perhaps) valuable because of this independence of thought. Otherwise thought is pretty much wasted. This goes for other people, too.

Of course, COMPLETE independence of action and thought and disregard for right and wrong are not excusable. You can't carry free will over to the farthest extent of this opinion and say that murder and rape, etc, are okay, because what's right and wrong is to be decided by the individual. Others must be taken into account too, which necessitates honoring the beliefs of others (which sometimes don't happen, sadly.)

Yahoo.

Pssh. Everybody knows we were clones by aliens and brought to this galaxy to be experiamented on.

Fact is, guys, most LDS folk make themselves happy by doing LDS things.

Reject it, if you will. Don't be a jerk about it. I have met very few "Saints" who were mean spirited when someone calmy, politely rejected their views of the world. It is strictly against the church's policy to argue violently about religion (though of course, people of Jon's ilk enjoy starting flamewars about it, though in personal conversation it would not be called that).

There are without doubt many holes in the LDS religion and its founders. The so-called "open canon" is one that gives me great difficulty: the religion that millions upon millions of people devote countless hours to can change completely at the whims of 13 aging men. White men. Along with this goes the extensive amount of indecision following Joseph Smith's death, with four or so churches all claiming the right to Joseph's Priesthood authority. Brother Brig, as Spook calls him, simply gained the majority. Many of the original "witnesses" either left the churches competely, went to one of the other churches and then moved to Mormonism, or.. died. Emma Smith, Joseph's first wife, just hung out.

How do LDS people reply to this? They were traumatized by his death. Emma had a hard life.

Wikipedia has interesting notes about early leaders' involvement with Freemasons, along with several completely legitimate points about the "Adam-God theory" and changes in LDS temple practices. Interesting reads.

Despite all of this, Mormon people (like me, except unlike me), will say that all of this fact is irrelevent if you have received a "witness of the Holy Ghost." They use the transitive property, no kidding: if they receive a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, by golly, it all has to be true. The testimony is often referred to as a "burning in the bosom."

I have run out of things to say. I will note that all of this research is part of an ongoing quest for data to give to my parents when I tell them that, no, I am not going on a mission and, no, I am not going to continue going to church activities while I am at university. It is all incredibly useful.

That "burning in the bosom" is just emotion. It's easily reproducible by watching the right kind of movie.

For god's sake, Mormons devote whole Sunday School lessons to teaching classes how to differentiate between emotion and the spirit. They try so hard to find differences when there aren't any. If there was a difference between the two, they wouldn't have to try so hard to brainwash people into believing there is a difference.

I have no idea who that is.

Yeah, whatever. 'Excommunication'? Intercourse under duress is still rape buddy.

No no no no no. God, you people have no concept of the art. The secret to effectively "bashing" something doesn't involve fact or reason whatsoever. You say what people are already thinking, but in the harshest possible way.

And if I were the least bit interested in learning more about your daffy cult I'd have probably spent some time talking to the last idiot trying to round up door-to-door heaven tickets. Instead of, you know, slamming my door on his foot and threatening to get my gun.