First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Communication
Posted 4/4/08

shibole wrote:

I don't really mind if there's an atheism thread even if atheism isn't strictly a religion.

Perhaps there should be a thread on "secular moral beliefs" or something. That might be more interesting and inclusive. I'm always curious as to where people who don't follow any religion get their moral beliefs and what they believe in.


I was born agnostic to my two former Christian parents (stopped going to church when they were in college). Did my value system or morals come from Christianity? Not completely, considering some things that I think is ok would not be accepted by a church. When they left Christianity behind, they still kept the character-building skills/values, but opened their minds to more belief systems, and taught me along the way. Just because the organized religion seems nice on the outside, doesn't mean there isn't any back-stabbing or hatred (homophobes, radical war protests, bigotry, etc.) on the inside. Now don't see this the wrong way, there are plenty of great and wonderful organizations; I just wanted to give a reason why I don't follow any particular belief system at the time being.

An example of my morals:
I see a whole group of homeless people suffering on the street, I don't cry for them or feel extremely sad, but would try to assist them if they asked. However, when I hear about the millions of cases of animal and child cruelty in my country, and see dramatic imagery pertaining to the subject, I cannot contain myself. I feel angry, sorrowful, tight, and intense emotional pain in my soul. Why? It's because these animals and children are helpless; they have no say whatsoever in anything, and people toss them aside like merchandise. I feel that shows moral stability and humanity, what about you?
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/4/08

shibole wrote:

I'm always curious as to where people who don't follow any religion get their moral beliefs and what they believe in.


That is partly what I was getting at, but I wanted it in Mauz's words, since he was the one who brought up the topic. Also, I didn't mean "fear" as in afraid, but "fear" in the more biblical sense of respect/worship/consideration/reverence for.


46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/4/08
Secular ethics, Moral philosophy, Aristotle's virtue ethics, for example. Buddha's four noble truths, those are not necessarily religious and are good examples.

Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/4/08

shibole wrote:

I don't really mind if there's an atheism thread even if atheism isn't strictly a religion.

Perhaps there should be a thread on "secular moral beliefs" or something. That might be more interesting and inclusive. I'm always curious as to where people who don't follow any religion get their moral beliefs and what they believe in.




Same place that Christians get it from. From the perceived perception of others. I know that’s a bit tangled, but think about it. Christians get their morality from God. They behave according to what they feel God feels is wrong. An atheist can do the same thing-except, replaced the word God with people. Now, modern morality was born from religion, but it’s become a secularly establish organization. You don’t need Christianity, for example, to know that murder is wrong.

It’s kind of like Christmas. I celebrated Christmas as a child, and it was nothing to do with Jesus Christ. It’s what people did and so I did it.

There’s also the code of pride. That’s the “moral” system that I followed as an atheist. It was wrong to degrade myself because pride dictated that it was so. I felt it was so and so I treated it as though it was so. It was obstinacy born from pride.

There are some Atheists, however, who don’t believe in any morality. Right and wrong are two invented aspects of reality-according to them. Who was it that said, “Without God all things are permissible…but nothing is meaningful,” again?

Again it depends on what type of atheist we’re talking about and which individual.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/4/08
That last bit refers to things like moral subjectivism or ethical relativism, in other words, up to me or a society to decide whats wrong and what is right which is not reallya strong position but it's still around.

Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/21/08 , edited 4/22/08
to: YouAreDumb: Just for informations sake, a couple of years ago, the...I dunno, International Christian Alliance, or some such...a group of leaders from most Christian denominations issued a public appology to the LDS church, and recognised our faith as Christian. In fact, in Edmonton (where I used to live) we were asked to represent Christianity at an all-faiths conference, by presenting a musical number. It was enlightening. (Yes, I participated).
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/08

mauz15 wrote:

That last bit refers to things like moral subjectivism or ethical relativism, in other words, up to me or a society to decide whats wrong and what is right which is not reallya strong position but it's still around.



Why is it not a strong position, do you say?
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 7/3/08 , edited 7/3/08

krnsoldierofGod wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


krnsoldierofGod wrote:


maybe because you are

now...did Mr.Smith rewrite the book of Revelations? just out of curiosity


….Disrespectful…


just wait a little bit cuz I have something to show


I have answered this question already, but I will copy the answer here for you, so it's easier to reference.


krnsoldierofGod wrote:


kimmm6 wrote:




do you belive that ALL of the original Bible is ok?


8th article of faith: We believe the bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly...

We use the KJV. We also understand that man is fallable, and can make errors. Some of those errors show up in the bible. Unless a man has a gift from God to translate (being a Seer) then he is relying on his own wisdom. God is the one who knows exactly what He wants said in His word, and all translating should be done through Him. Unfortunately, when the Bible was originally translated from greek and hebrew, it wasn't done at God's behest, but at man's desire for understanding. As a result, errors creep in...it is unavoidable.

After Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he was required, by God, to go through the entire bible and make small corrections in the original translations. We call these "Joseph Smith Translations". They are included as footnotes and appendicies in our publications. Sometimes the are very small changes, and sometimes they are quite a bit bigger, but they are not added directly into the bible.

So...no. We don't believe ALL of the original Bible is "ok"...We use the original bible, and when errors crop up, we follow the JST. We do not use "modern" translations of the Bible, either...the ones that take out the "thees" and "thous" and change it so it's easier to read. For all the world's translations, the KJV is the most accurate, and even changing from "Faith, Hope and Charity" to "Faith, Hope and Love", changes the meaning, ever so slightly.

Now, krn, why do I feel like I'm being set up?




maybe because you are

Member
8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 7/3/08

kimmm6 wrote:


krnsoldierofGod wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


krnsoldierofGod wrote:


maybe because you are

now...did Mr.Smith rewrite the book of Revelations? just out of curiosity


….Disrespectful…


just wait a little bit cuz I have something to show


I have answered this question already, but I will copy the answer here for you, so it's easier to reference.


krnsoldierofGod wrote:


kimmm6 wrote:




do you belive that ALL of the original Bible is ok?


8th article of faith: We believe the bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly...

We use the KJV. We also understand that man is fallable, and can make errors. Some of those errors show up in the bible. Unless a man has a gift from God to translate (being a Seer) then he is relying on his own wisdom. God is the one who knows exactly what He wants said in His word, and all translating should be done through Him. Unfortunately, when the Bible was originally translated from greek and hebrew, it wasn't done at God's behest, but at man's desire for understanding. As a result, errors creep in...it is unavoidable.

After Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he was required, by God, to go through the entire bible and make small corrections in the original translations. We call these "Joseph Smith Translations". They are included as footnotes and appendicies in our publications. Sometimes the are very small changes, and sometimes they are quite a bit bigger, but they are not added directly into the bible.

So...no. We don't believe ALL of the original Bible is "ok"...We use the original bible, and when errors crop up, we follow the JST. We do not use "modern" translations of the Bible, either...the ones that take out the "thees" and "thous" and change it so it's easier to read. For all the world's translations, the KJV is the most accurate, and even changing from "Faith, Hope and Charity" to "Faith, Hope and Love", changes the meaning, ever so slightly.

Now, krn, why do I feel like I'm being set up?




maybe because you are



alright just making sure


now I have one more question for you

Are there any other interpretations for this statement? I mean the book of Revelations is the book most difficult to understand, but even a 3rd grader can understand this particular statement

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelations chapter 22 verses 18-19 NIV)

Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 7/3/08
1) the bible wasn't a book when it was written. It was a series of letters, and journal accounts, and personal histories written on papyrus. It wasn't compiled into a book until the Bible was created, some time later.

2) The "book" of revelations was written, chronologically, BEFORE some of the other books in the NT.

3) Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, niether shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." whoops, that just negated the entire NT right there.

Anything can be misinterpreted when taken out of text. This testimony was given of this particular revelation, and not for the Bible as a whole, since the Bible WASN'T a whole when it was given.

Now, krn, I have been "defending" my faith for almost 30 years, and you will have a very hard time trying to "prove" it wrong to me. As Seraph said, others have been trying to disprove the church, even to the point of creating false evidence, for over 150 years. Nothing has ever had sticking power. At the risk of being rude (again), you will have to do a LOT better than that if you want to try and convince me that my faith is misplaced. However, I am not interested in Bible bashing with you. You won't win, and it's very hard to feel the Spirit when contending with another. I'm not going to ask you to believe in the LDS church, but I will ask you to respect my right to believe it. I will NOT be drawn into another discussion of this nature with you.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/3/08

kimmm6 wrote:

1) the bible wasn't a book when it was written. It was a series of letters, and journal accounts, and personal histories written on papyrus. It wasn't compiled into a book until the Bible was created, some time later.

2) The "book" of revelations was written, chronologically, BEFORE some of the other books in the NT.

3) Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, niether shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." whoops, that just negated the entire NT right there.

Anything can be misinterpreted when taken out of text. This testimony was given of this particular revelation, and not for the Bible as a whole, since the Bible WASN'T a whole when it was given.

Now, krn, I have been "defending" my faith for almost 30 years, and you will have a very hard time trying to "prove" it wrong to me. As Seraph said, others have been trying to disprove the church, even to the point of creating false evidence, for over 150 years. Nothing has ever had sticking power. At the risk of being rude (again), you will have to do a LOT better than that if you want to try and convince me that my faith is misplaced. However, I am not interested in Bible bashing with you. You won't win, and it's very hard to feel the Spirit when contending with another. I'm not going to ask you to believe in the LDS church, but I will ask you to respect my right to believe it. I will NOT be drawn into another discussion of this nature with you.


Actually most historians believe the book of Revelations was written a time after the other documents of the bible. Only a minority amongst them disagree. The reason behind this confusion is that the books of the bible were not all picked at once. It took time, each book being voted on. Once they decided which books to include, they argued about what order to put them in.

However, you make a grand point. Revelations wasn’t written to be a part of a cannon. Revelations isn’t even a book, it’s a collection of letters; therefore, when it says, “Do not add to this,” it actually means “don’t add to my letters.” This is because a lo of the churches in that time were attempting to conform to secretarial norms in order to convert followers, gain support, and sooth some of the discrimination against Christians. (Which was terrible in that time.)

You’re also right to say that anything can be taken out of text to mean something completely different. Since the words, “Jesus,” and “was,” and “a” and “whore,” are all in the bible we can actually make it seem as if the bible says…well, you get it.

As far as your ending note: O_O woot…
Member
8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 7/5/08

kimmm6 wrote:

1) the bible wasn't a book when it was written. It was a series of letters, and journal accounts, and personal histories written on papyrus. It wasn't compiled into a book until the Bible was created, some time later.

2) The "book" of revelations was written, chronologically, BEFORE some of the other books in the NT.

3) Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, niether shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." whoops, that just negated the entire NT right there.

Anything can be misinterpreted when taken out of text. This testimony was given of this particular revelation, and not for the Bible as a whole, since the Bible WASN'T a whole when it was given.

Now, krn, I have been "defending" my faith for almost 30 years, and you will have a very hard time trying to "prove" it wrong to me. As Seraph said, others have been trying to disprove the church, even to the point of creating false evidence, for over 150 years. Nothing has ever had sticking power. At the risk of being rude (again), you will have to do a LOT better than that if you want to try and convince me that my faith is misplaced. However, I am not interested in Bible bashing with you. You won't win, and it's very hard to feel the Spirit when contending with another. I'm not going to ask you to believe in the LDS church, but I will ask you to respect my right to believe it. I will NOT be drawn into another discussion of this nature with you.


1. yes i know the bible wasn't a book when it was written, its a collection of various letters and books the Catholic church collected and translated into latin by some dude I forgot his name. The quote from Revelations is talking about only the book Revelations which was why I asked you if Smith changed anything from Revelations

2. I think the book of revelations was actually the last one written because by then John was the only surivor ( I think at least) at that time and he wrote that book near the end of his life ( i think I just heard something ilke that a couple years ago when I was studying the bible and its authors) but what does that have anything to do with this

3. How did this negate the New Testament?

4. As I wrote before I know the bible didn't exist then, I'm talking about only revelations here

Not trying to argue or convert, just interested in what someone whos a mormon has to say about this
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 7/5/08
Any changes Joseph Smith made to Revelations was done in the way I mentioned, by footnotes and appendicies.

People who bring this scripture up, usually do so to try and refute the Book of Mormon as "adding to" scripture already given.

Ye shall not add unto or deminish ought...the death of Christ changed a great deal of the original word of God. Not going into detail right now...since I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

I can't address the actual chronology of the Apostles right now.
Member
8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 7/5/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


kimmm6 wrote:

1) the bible wasn't a book when it was written. It was a series of letters, and journal accounts, and personal histories written on papyrus. It wasn't compiled into a book until the Bible was created, some time later.

2) The "book" of revelations was written, chronologically, BEFORE some of the other books in the NT.

3) Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, niether shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." whoops, that just negated the entire NT right there.

Anything can be misinterpreted when taken out of text. This testimony was given of this particular revelation, and not for the Bible as a whole, since the Bible WASN'T a whole when it was given.

Now, krn, I have been "defending" my faith for almost 30 years, and you will have a very hard time trying to "prove" it wrong to me. As Seraph said, others have been trying to disprove the church, even to the point of creating false evidence, for over 150 years. Nothing has ever had sticking power. At the risk of being rude (again), you will have to do a LOT better than that if you want to try and convince me that my faith is misplaced. However, I am not interested in Bible bashing with you. You won't win, and it's very hard to feel the Spirit when contending with another. I'm not going to ask you to believe in the LDS church, but I will ask you to respect my right to believe it. I will NOT be drawn into another discussion of this nature with you.


Actually most historians believe the book of Revelations was written a time after the other documents of the bible. Only a minority amongst them disagree. The reason behind this confusion is that the books of the bible were not all picked at once. It took time, each book being voted on. Once they decided which books to include, they argued about what order to put them in.

However, you make a grand point. Revelations wasn’t written to be a part of a cannon. Revelations isn’t even a book, it’s a collection of letters; therefore, when it says, “Do not add to this,” it actually means “don’t add to my letters.” This is because a lo of the churches in that time were attempting to conform to secretarial norms in order to convert followers, gain support, and sooth some of the discrimination against Christians. (Which was terrible in that time.)

You’re also right to say that anything can be taken out of text to mean something completely different. Since the words, “Jesus,” and “was,” and “a” and “whore,” are all in the bible we can actually make it seem as if the bible says…well, you get it.

As far as your ending note: O_O woot…


You must be terribly misinformed or really out of date because All of the authors of the New Testament haev been verified except for the book Hebrews; Revelations was written by John. Just because its a collection of letters doesn't mean that it can't be a book.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/book

And btw, during that time, the churches were mostly concerned about survival rather than converting followers (or so my history teachers says) because Christiand were being killed left and right


First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.