"Ask a Christian!"

[Davin]

I understand your point, and you are correct to say they share fundamental beliefs of Christianity, but their doctrine has become so tainted/deeply influenced by another belief(s) system, in which many of their tenants are very incompatible and often contradictory with their original beliefs. For example, they believe God the Father (not being one "God", but being among many "gods") being once human from another planet, residing near a star they call Kolob. This father is married to a "mother goddess" whom had bore many children. Jesus is one of the many "sons" of God (including his brother Satan). Jesus was conceived when God the Father literally stepped down to earth and had sexual relations with the virgin Mary. In addition, the sacrifice of Jesus is not sufficient for some sins (i.e. murder, repeated adultery). Needless to say Mormonism tremendously differentiates itself from any branch of reasonably orthodox  Christianity. It would appropriately fall in the same category as other Christian "spin offs" such as gnosticism and esoteric Christianity.

Or that weird Catholicism stuff. One problem in your description is that many of the odd things in it are based around misconceptions of the Mormon religion instead of what they actually teach. I know you're trying to make it appear more silly than your own particular flavor, but even with all that, it's no more or less ridiculous than any other version of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter).

But please, don't continue the misrepresentations of their religion just as you wouldn't want someone making things up about yours.

[Cforcerunner]

Or that weird Catholicism stuff. One problem in your description is that many of the odd things in it are based around misconceptions of the Mormon religion instead of what they actually teach. I know you're trying to make it appear more silly than your own particular flavor, but even with all that, it's no more or less ridiculous than any other version of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter).

But please, don't continue the misrepresentations of their religion just as you wouldn't want someone making things up about yours.

Davin, I have no intention in misrepresenting any religion, nor am I on here with an agenda to misrepresent nor offend anyone's beliefs. If you find Mormonism, Christianity, Islam (theology at large) all "ridiculous", those are your words, not mine. Please, by all means, tell me what beliefs of Mormonism have I misrepresented? The Mormon president (past and present) has fully acknowledged their substantial differences from that of universal Christian doctrine. If you have done much more extended research into Mormonism, I will be more than happy to revise my understanding on their doctrine and what they teach. So please don't be judge me with an agenda that only exists in your presumptions.

[Medusa]

I understand your point, and you are correct to say they share fundamental beliefs of Christianity, but their doctrine has become so tainted/deeply influenced by another belief(s) system, in which many of their tenants are very incompatible and often contradictory with their original beliefs. For example, they believe God the Father (not being one "God", but being among many "gods") being once human from another planet, residing near a star they call Kolob. This father is married to a "mother goddess" whom had bore many children. Jesus is one of the many "sons" of God (including his brother Satan). Jesus was conceived when God the Father literally stepped down to earth and had sexual relations with the virgin Mary. In addition, the sacrifice of Jesus is not sufficient for some sins (i.e. murder, repeated adultery). Needless to say Mormonism tremendously differentiates itself from any branch of reasonably orthodox  Christianity. It would appropriately fall in the same category as other Christian "spin offs" such as gnosticism and esoteric Christianity.

Or that weird Catholicism stuff. One problem in your description is that many of the odd things in it are based around misconceptions of the Mormon religion instead of what they actually teach. I know you're trying to make it appear more silly than your own particular flavor, but even with all that, it's no more or less ridiculous than any other version of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter).

But please, don't continue the misrepresentations of their religion just as you wouldn't want someone making things up about yours.

Actually he's quite accurate. On our Pagan forum we have a former Mormon (now Pagan but still tied in to the Mormon way of things for the time being). She's had an ongoing Ask a Mormon thread there. And it's quite kooky (she will attest to this) they do in fact believe that stuff. And so so so much more...enough to also agree with Sweets, the scare the bejeesus out of me.

[xSilverPhinx]

Cforcerunner, which denomination do you follow and why? That is, if you identify with one.

And...just to add, which belief system do you think is weirder, Mormonism or Scientology?

[Cforcerunner]

Cforcerunner, which denomination do you follow and why? That is, if you identify with one.

And...just to add, which belief system do you think is weirder, Mormonism or Scientology?

The first question was pretty much answered at the beginning of the thread.

What church do you belong to?
Do you believe all (morals) that you are taught by your church?

I go to a southern baptist church, as well as a nondenominational church in atlanta. But would not box my beliefs in a denomination's tradition.

And as far answering your second question, I simply don't know "all" morals taught within my church, or all of their theological stances. However, I will say that  I am not a big fan on how baptists choose to "dodge the question", when it comes to issues of speaking in tongues or prophesy in today's times. And I am still doing personal research to draw my own conclusions on those issues. However, I believe in their overall emphasis on global missions and enjoy the pastor's style of preaching.

To the second one, I have no idea. I would at least consider Mormonism as a religion, and I have yet to see how Scientology became to be legally recognized as a religion. Apparently their truth is only for those who can afford to it.   

[xSilverPhinx]

The first question was pretty much answered at the beginning of the thread.

Whoops, sorry! I must have the shortest attention span on Earth coupled with almost complete inawareness of that fact.

[Sweetdeath]

Scientology is just as stupid as any religion.  They just know how to scam celeberties and make a shit ton of money from it.

[The Magic Pudding]

Do Tasmanian Devils suffer from transmissible cancer due to some auto smite mechanism triggered by their name?
Anyway can you send a prayer for them, they're just critters you know.  If they fall foxes will rise and other unique things will pass away.

[Stevil]

Actually he's quite accurate. On our Pagan forum we have a former Mormon (now Pagan but still tied in to the Mormon way of things for the time being). She's had an ongoing Ask a Mormon thread there. And it's quite kooky (she will attest to this) they do in fact believe that stuff. And so so so much more...enough to also agree with Sweets, the scare the bejeesus out of me.

I'm not sure how we judge one religion as being more kooky than the other. They all seem to be very kooky if you ask me.
Some people think if they mention aliens then that makes them odd, but I happen to think there most likely is life on other planets.
Some think that their god is eternal, never changes, just simply knows everything about everything, even before anything existed and by definition is not comprised of anything that could be considered to exist such as energy or matter.
They press their hands together wish for things, they clutch crucifixes, hang painting of a guy being killed on their wall. Eat bread wishing it were Jesus flesh, drink wine wishing it were Jesus blood. Kooky, kooky, kooky!

[Cforcerunner]

I'm not sure how we judge one religion as being more kooky than the other.

I'd agree that debating "kookiness" is not too productive.

Some think that their god is eternal, never changes, just simply knows everything about everything

I believe this, I would imagine a being capable of creating all matter and energy.... Would know a thing or two about all matter and energy.

even before anything existed and by definition is not comprised of anything that could be considered to exist such as energy or matter.

Sure...Being transcendent would infer that the entity is made not of energy or matter. So if you, by definition assert God equates as being "not comprised of anything". I suppose mathematics, morality, thoughts/sapience are essentially "not comprised of anything", either.

They press their hands together wish for things,

A poor definition of a traditional act of prayer, but you can also bow your head  

they clutch crucifixes

Don't believe I've done this before.

hang painting of a guy being killed on their wall.

Don't believe I've done that either.

Eat bread wishing it were Jesus flesh, drink wine wishing it were Jesus blood. Kooky, kooky, kooky!

Looks like I'm three for three!  

[Stevil]

Sure...Being transcendent would infer that the entity is made not of energy or matter. So if you, by definition assert God equates as being "not comprised of anything". I suppose mathematics, morality, thoughts/sapience are essentially "not comprised of anything", either.

Mathematics is conceptual, numbers are conceptual, mathematical functions are conceptual. We use these as tools to help us model and understand the real world, but they of themselves are not the real world.
As for thoughts (conceptual), they are interpretations (mediation) that the long running process (conceptual) we call our consciousness (conceptual) makes with regards to the firings of neurons (physical) that continuously goes on within our brains (physical).

Looks like I'm three for three!  

I did say "some people" certainly didn't mention all Christians, and certainly wasn't inferring that you in specific believed these things.
but, with all these traditions, beliefs, theories, if you are not a believer and are on the outside then they can easily appear kooky.
Many people think evolution is kooky.

[Cforcerunner]

Mathematics is conceptual, numbers are conceptual, mathematical functions are conceptual. We use these as tools to help us model and understand the real world, but they of themselves are not the real world.
As for thoughts (conceptual), they are interpretations (mediation) that the long running process (conceptual) we call our consciousness (conceptual) makes with regards to the firings of neurons (physical) that continuously goes on within our brains (physical).

You're definition of mathematics as being "...tools to help us model and understand the real world, but they are not real world", is a fair observation, but would not be the best definition. Similar to the theories of natural sciences, mathematical theorems are not so much human inventions, but are rather discovered. For example when Pythagoras discovered "the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides" (Pythagorean theorem), this fact has always existed regardless of Pythagoras' time and predates human experience. This would include time and quantum theory. Although we know these things to exist through conception and the ability to compute abstractions; does not indicate that they don't exist in the real world.

   

[Stevil]

Mathematics is conceptual, numbers are conceptual, mathematical functions are conceptual. We use these as tools to help us model and understand the real world, but they of themselves are not the real world.
As for thoughts (conceptual), they are interpretations (mediation) that the long running process (conceptual) we call our consciousness (conceptual) makes with regards to the firings of neurons (physical) that continuously goes on within our brains (physical).

You're definition of mathematics as being "...tools to help us model and understand the real world, but they are not real world", is a fair observation, but would not be the best definition. Similar to the theories of natural sciences, mathematical theorems are not so much human inventions, but are rather discovered. For example when Pythagoras discovered "the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides" (Pythagorean theorem), this fact has always existed regardless of Pythagoras' time and predates human experience. This would include time and quantum theory. Although we know these things to exist through conception and the ability to compute abstractions; does not indicate that they don't exist in the real world.

Trigonometry is conceptual. A triangle does not exist of itself. It is simply the way we model the world. If I draw these three lines in this way it looks like a triangle. It is not a triangle, it merely looks like our concept of a triangle. Based on the properties and constraints of this concept we can also introduce the concept of mathematics and work out some interesting mathematical correlations with regards to angles and side lengths. We can create some mathematical rules that apply to all triangle or simply only right angled triangles. But this is all conceptual. Physically we have some carbon particles dispersed on certain parts of paper.

[Cforcerunner]

Trigonometry is conceptual. A triangle does not exist of itself. It is simply the way we model the world. If I draw these three lines in this way it looks like a triangle. It is not a triangle, it merely looks like our concept of a triangle. Based on the properties and constraints of this concept we can also introduce the concept of mathematics and work out some interesting mathematical correlations with regards to angles and side lengths. We can create some mathematical rules that apply to all triangle or simply only right angled triangles. But this is all conceptual. Physically we have some carbon particles dispersed on certain parts of paper.

It seems the biggest presumption you have that I am disagreeing with is that because something is "conceptual" or "abstract" or "not physical", does not conclude it doesn't exist. If both you and I saw a circular clock in my kitchen, we both would agree the shape of the of the clock is that of a circle. It wouldn't be our consciousness creating the same consistent shape, it would be because such an object actually exists. If we both decided to measure the width of the clock (or any other measurement), chances are we would gather the same results (lets just say the clock is objectively 10 inches wide).

While you are concluding such measurement would not exist without the tools of human sapience, I am concluding the other way around. Quantity, space, structure, and shapes are a part of the natural world, independent of individual experience.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I have another question!

And this was something I could never reconcile when I was Christian myself, so here it is: How do you know your belief is "enough"? Religious folk often talk about belief as if it is an all or none game, but I have never been able to see how that is so. It always made more sense to me that belief was like trust, there were several shades and you could have "a lot" or "a little", but when you absolutely NEED a certain amount to be "saved" where is the "enough" line?

Haha, interesting question. I suppose us religious folks just have the feeling in our boot soles! xD

But seriously, theology and religion can be a very overwhelming topic to ponder about. And with so many denominations, mixed messages, variation of doctrine on salvation between different church groups. The important thing to do is to do your own spiritual guide do for youself and not because you'll feel accepted to a particular group of believers. When I read the gospels, I was amazed. When you strip away the VBS Jesus and look into who he actually was, that was what did it for me. Listening to testimonies and secular journals on what Jesus has done is truly remarkable. I can't use this to create an argument to logically conclude Christianity is true, but that would be missing the point.

My advice to you (or your former self) is to strip away all of you've heard/think you've heard about Jesus. And read the gospel for yourself. There is no amount of "belief" needed. Hear out the message Jesus has brought and decide for yourself if you can accept it or don't....It's really as simple as that.

Even if you have convinced yourself 100% that you are the believiest believer that ever believed, how do you feel at ease about that? Because, obviously, it is YOU that is making that judgement and one of the tenants of christian faith is that we are all fallible in our judgement and ability to discern God's will on our own. And God will never really come down and say "okay, you pass, you're saved!", or even if he did, how could you be sure you will keep that status?

Trust me, you'll know. Christianity is certainly a lifestyle. And more of a life complete thankfulness for the grace of God then a life of strict moral conduct. I know when I became an actual Christian, my view of the world and my purpose significantly changed.

Take me, for example, I went from Christian to agnostic to (close-to) full atheist over the course of maybe ten years. Very gradually. When did I stop being saved? There was a period of time when I probably didn't believe very strongly, but I would pray "for stronger faith" and that kind of thing, was I saved then? Or would I be doomed once the slightest bit of doubt crept in?

I'm honestly wondering because this point used to drive me crazy when I was a believer and I never really talked about it with anyone else, so I'd be interested to see how current Christians feel about it.  

I would consider myself once agnostic/deistic before. So I can relate to your view, but have moved in a different direction. I don't believe you ever "lost" faith. I don't believe followers of Jesus, once converting, was in a constant state of pondering their salvation. It could be you never truly experienced it in the first place. This is very common since many conversions are solely emotionally based. That's great that you were praying for stronger faith (assuming those prayers were very legitimate), but it sounds you were a state of seeking faith rather than actually having it. For me, it is difficult to describe the state of mind during my conversion, but it was a long and reflective process...."counting the cost" as Jesus would say. Again, read the gospels for yourself with fresh eyes, the way I grew up learning the gospel was very watered-downed. I also recommend reading Mere Christianity, not for proof of Christianity, but for a simple and intelligent explanation regarding many components of the Christian worldview.  

Interesting response, though I don't see how a prayer could not be "legitimate", could you explain what you mean by that? You also seem to be hinting that I was never really a true "believer" to begin with and I'm not sure why, because I did explain that I was. I understand that "belief" is a subjective thing, but for several years of my life I had, what I believed to be true, religious experiences, I went to church, I went to church camps, I read the bible cover to cover, I had the "personal relationship with God". I even got a cross tattoo. Or would you consider someone that comes to consider themselves an Atheist, by definition, someone who could have never "really" believed (because "real" grace of God would never allow it or something of that nature?) If that is the case, I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on that (though I don't want to put words in your mouth, maybe that's not what you meant)

Also, what do you mean by a conversion being "emotionally based". What else would it be based on?

Thanks for your honest response   I find this interesting