Religious proselytizers.

[Robert163]

@Rune

I can understand that you haven’t studied quantum physics.

what exactly is your point?

[Ludovic]

@74westy

THERE ARE 5 BILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD?!

I’m not looking forward to reading the paper tonight.

And the only ones on our side are 700 million Chinese.

[monavis]

@bizerta

There’s a guy who goes to Boston sporting events (and other crowds) and has a sign that advises me to believe in Jesus or I will spend eternity in Hell. This guy claims that God told him to do this, yet he can’t explain why God chose him, and only him. Either he, like Joseph Smith, is one of a chosen few, or this guy is nuts.

But it got me to wondering … How do these bible beaters rationalize the following?

>>> If their belief system (be it Mormon, Jehovah, Buddah, Muslim, or Angelina Jolie) is the ONE TRUE belief system, why don’t people flock to it on their own? Why do they need to be “converted”? What is the Bible-beaters logic on that? I mean, if I’m too stupid to convert to Mormonism, why does the average Mormon waste two years of Gods life to teach those of us that don’t see the light?

>>> If I don’t believe in Jesus, I’m going to hell. What about all those people who died before Jesus was born? Did God punish them to hell? Did God intentionally have them born too early just so he could banish them to Hell??? With 5 billion people in this world, it wouldn’t surprise me that at least one billion have know knowledge whatsoever about Jesus. Are these people doomed to hell just because their parents never told them about Jesus? How do the fire-and-brimstone preachers rationalize that? I’m sure they have a “logical” excuse.

People seem to forget that their religions all came from another human and their belief is in humans not God. anyone can say God told them something I could say God told me he didn’t have any religions, but I would not be telling the truth.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

I was rewatching old videos on Youtube and I came across a salient point: in the search for truth, what should happen is concordance - bad ideas fall out of favor, and we collectively end up moving towards a less and less divided view of the world. In science, with competing hypotheses, this is exactly what we see. As the evidence piles up and our models become clearer, hypotheses start to dwindle, until we end up with a small, non-contradictory handful that we can apply to the real world. With religion, we see exactly the opposite - fractures and fragments galore, with no sign of the trend going the other direction any time soon. Why is that?

[Telemark]

@Robert163

what exactly is your point?

Quantum physics is pretty wacky, too.

[Monty]

@bizerta

So, how do Mormons justify the Mountain Meadows Massacre? I’m sure they have a prepared text on the subject, if asked.

First off, it’s not Mormon doctrine to “murder the unbelievers”. As to “prepared text”, perhaps this site will help you some.

[Annie-Xmas]

I’ve never understood why people accept Christ now. I mean, you can live a life of totally debauchery, kill 500 billion people, and accept Jesus right before the switch is pulled and then go to heaven.

Biggest loophole ever.

[running_coach]

@Annie-Xmas

I’ve never understood why people accept Christ now. I mean, you can live a life of totally debauchery, kill 500 billion people, and accept Jesus right before the switch is pulled and then go to heaven.

Biggest loophole ever.

The timing’s a bitch, though.

[Sicks_Ate]

@Annie-Xmas

I’ve never understood why people accept Christ now. I mean, you can live a life of totally debauchery, kill 500 billion people, and accept Jesus right before the switch is pulled and then go to heaven.

Biggest loophole ever.

@running_coach

The timing’s a bitch, though.

This dovetails in with something I was thinking about while I was unable to sleep last night.

To frame the question, let’s assume that when you die, you will continue to ‘live’ for eternity either with God, or in eternal suffering without him.

I assume we can stipulate that ‘eternity’ is a ‘long, long, time’ compared to the human lifespan.

So I have, when compared to eternity, an infinitesimal amount of time to decide if I Accept Jesus Christ As My Lord And Savior while I’m on this Earth.

If I time it wrong, and die in a car crash before I’ve really decided to Accept Jesus Christ As My Lord And Savior, I’m out of luck. To the fiery pits of Hell with me, forever, which no chance to change my mind.

Kind of fucking arbitrary, ain’t it? God’s kind of a pushy, impatient fucker.

[Peter_Morris]

Life isn’t fair. Why expect an afterlife to be so?

[TokyoBayer]

@bizerta

OP here. First, I received a 792 SAT score in math and was a math major in college. Secondly, that is not relevant as I mentioned nothing mathematical in my original post.

Sorry, that was just a little joke in line with what others were saying. 5 billion, 7 billion, whatever it takes. . . It was more a little jab at the irrational belief that 0.7% of the population has any kind of actual importance in the world.

And since you have some knowledge … I watched a PBS miniseries on Mormons back in 2007. I remember the year because it just happened to occur on the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I love the way religious zealots (be it Mormon, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the current ISIS crisis, or Michael Corleone), can justify murdering non believers, and then they still have complete confidence that God will welcome them in the afterlife.

So, how do Mormons justify the Mountain Meadows Massacre? I’m sure they have a prepared text on the subject, if asked.

That is one of the scary things about religious zealots, is the potential for self-justification of all sorts of real, real ugliness, up to and including murder.

Fortunately, like the RCC, mainstreams Mormons have backed away from earlier bloodthirsty doctrines, although some of the early doctrines and practices are kept alive, and unfortunately expanded on, by some fringe polygamous elements

One of the beliefs of the ancient Israelites was the idea that the life of the perpetrator of certain crimes and sins must be taken. This was in contrast to the laws of surrounding cultures in which a blood ransom could be paid. I don’t know how much of an influence that had on the early Mormon doctrine of Blood Atonement.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion and its first prophet, taught that certain sins were so so serious as to put the sinner “beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ.” For these fallen sinners, their “only hope” lay in having “their own blood shed to atone.” Smith made clear that the shedding of “innocent blood” (including killing anyone less than eight years old, the age of accountability in Mormon teaching) was an unpardonable sin which, along with failing to keep their covenants or betraying their testimonies, could lead to eternal damnation. In Smith’s theology, the doctrine applied only to Mormons, but it was widely viewed as providing justification for shedding the blood of apostates.

Brigham Young took the doctrine of blood atonement further than Smith. According to historian Juanita Brooks, “Young advocated and preached it without compromise.” Young, in an 1857 fire-and-brimstone sermon, demanded to know whether his his flock would have the courage to do what was necessary should a fellow Mormon commit an unforgiveable sin: “Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?” Some sinners, Young preached, who are “now angels to the devil” could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have “spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty.”

While Church leaders might have emphasized the practice of blood atonement against fallen Mormons, it contributed to the culture of extreme violence that marred the history of early Utah. The sermons of Brigham Young undoubtedly inspired his followers to commit murder, however unfair might have been the popular press’s willingness to blame every violent act in the territory to blood atonement.

The modern Mormon church has abandoned the doctrine of blood atonement, along with its promotion of theocracy, polygamy, communalism, “holy murder,” and other teachings that made in so controversial in its early years, and that accounted for much of the hostility the Church received from those outside of its membership. As historian Will Bagley, author of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows stated in the introduction to his carefully researched book, “[T]he ‘old time religion’ [of the period surrounding the massacre] has little relation to today’s LDS church, which for a century has been firmly committed to becoming no more controversial than Methodism.”

Some quotes from that page:

@Brigham Young

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them…

"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit… There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.”

(Sermon by Brigham Young published in the Mormon Church’s Deseret News, 1856)

@Monty

First off, it’s not Mormon doctrine to “murder the unbelievers”.

True. Most of the Mormon doctrine concerning killing people has traditionally been centered around apostates such as myself.

It has been Mormon doctrine that Mormons who do various things, such as reveal what happens in the temple should be willing to be killed. Anyone interested should google temple death penalties. That was something I thought was really creepy.

Other offenses included adultery and at one point included marrying blacks.

@Brigham Young

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race?
If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot.
This will always be so.”

Unlike reports of people being killed for adultery, and perhaps due to the acute shortage of female seed of Cain in the Territory of Utah, this I don’t know of any case of this doctrine actually being implemented.

@Sicks_Ate

So I have, when compared to eternity, an infinitesimal amount of time to decide if I Accept Jesus Christ As My Lord And Savior while I’m on this Earth.

If I time it wrong, and die in a car crash before I’ve really decided to Accept Jesus Christ As My Lord And Savior, I’m out of luck. To the fiery pits of Hell with me, forever, which no chance to change my mind.

Kind of fucking arbitrary, ain’t it? God’s kind of a pushy, impatient fucker.

As well as an all around asshole and mean SOB. Look the Mormon god, according the Joseph Smith’s teaching, all children under the age of eight are innocent and are not capable of conscious sin. Hence the killing of them is an act which requires blood atonement. However, God goes around and slaughters them to make a point:

@the God of Love(?)

This is what the LORD says: “About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.”

— Exodus 11:4–6

In the Book of Mormon, after Jesus is crucified in Jerusalem, he causes great calamities in the Americas because of disbelief

5 And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land.

6 And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder.

7 And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.

8 And the city of Zarahemla did take fire.

9 And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.

12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;

13 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.

14 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.

15 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain.

16 And there were some who were carried away in the whirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away.

17 And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth.

18 And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land.

19 And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land.

20 And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapor of darkness;

21 And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all;

22 And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land.

23 And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and howling and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them.

24 And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla.

25 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.

[monavis]

@Pinmin

These are more complicated questions to answer than a quick sound bite because they require more I depth understanding of Christian beliefs. The answers below are from that perspective.

1. Christians believe that our natural nature is one turned away from God. This is called a sin nature that has been part of the human experience since Adam and Eve. Essentially the Bible says that we are selfish people and naturally don’t want to believe.
2. a common misconception, but wrong. Hell is a place of punishment for wrongdoing. Everyone who has done wrong (everyone in Christian beliefs) deserves to go to Hell. Just like everyone who has committed a serious crime deserves to go to prison. Jesus provides a reprieve from this deserved punishment. There are many ways to answer this
   A) God doesn’t have to offer everyone this reprieve. Let’s say Oprah decides to pay off all debts of one lucky person. Does that mean it’s not fair that she didn’t pay off my debts? I accrued those debts and
   B) God is all knowing, all powerful, etc. Some say that he knows who will truly believe and they will hear some way from someone. Or they are born at a time and place where they will hear.

Since God knew all things before he created them it is not the fault of humans that they don’t believe. Only an unjust being would punish someone for a mistake they made. as a human I would expect a god to be more forgiving, and I would not conceive a child and not just expect them to believe in me but would make my self known. If there is a just, loving and fair being with all knowledge he would not have created Satan ether.

[monavis]

@Voyager

If every single person is bad and is condemned to hell without the Jesus get out of hell free card, I contend that by your definition we have no choice at all. Some may be worse than others, but we all are condemned. That is a monster god at work.

To add to that: When asked to heal a woman’s child Jesus is quoted as saying he only came for the lost sheep of Israel , that would mean he was not born to save the world.

[monavis]

@kanicbird

My answer to this, which would differ from theirs is that is what they need to do to come to God, so God lets them as the end result is that they will know God better - God will also use this man in some capacity, perhaps not for you but for others. In Acts 9 it does show God’s use of Paul for Paul’s refinement:

Covered in scriptures, seek God and you will find him. Also God does not change - ever, and Jesus is the way. So Jesus was always and always will be, even before we know Him to be born, even if we don’t see a people exposed to him - Jesus always is the way and the way has never changed as God does not change.

How I take this is it is not the man, the physical person, that died on the cross that we need, but we need to know that we are God’s children, we are all Jesus (this is why we can pray in the name of Jesus) and have the rights and inheritance of a child of God - we do not have to accept death as final that was never made for us. We all have the capacity that Jesus has, including dieing for others sins out of love and being raised again, but for many of us we need to see that goodness in others before we can know that we too are that child of God.

This of course we must take the word of some humans that they teach and are inspired by God to do this; any one can make a claim that God told them something. So as I have stated many times, I could say God inspired me to correct the sayings about him in any religion and some would believe me and some would not.Of course I know it is my own mind not the mind of a superior being.

[monavis]

@TokyoBayer

Sorry, that was just a little joke in line with what others were saying. 5 billion, 7 billion, whatever it takes. . . It was more a little jab at the irrational belief that 0.7% of the population has any kind of actual importance in the world.

That is one of the scary things about religious zealots, is the potential for self-justification of all sorts of real, real ugliness, up to and including murder.

Fortunately, like the RCC, mainstreams Mormons have backed away from earlier bloodthirsty doctrines, although some of the early doctrines and practices are kept alive, and unfortunately expanded on, by some fringe polygamous elements

One of the beliefs of the ancient Israelites was the idea that the life of the perpetrator of certain crimes and sins must be taken. This was in contrast to the laws of surrounding cultures in which a blood ransom could be paid. I don’t know how much of an influence that had on the early Mormon doctrine of Blood Atonement.

Some quotes from that page:

True. Most of the Mormon doctrine concerning killing people has traditionally been centered around apostates such as myself.

It has been Mormon doctrine that Mormons who do various things, such as reveal what happens in the temple should be willing to be killed. Anyone interested should google temple death penalties. That was something I thought was really creepy.

Other offenses included adultery and at one point included marrying blacks.

Unlike reports of people being killed for adultery, and perhaps due to the acute shortage of female seed of Cain in the Territory of Utah, this I don’t know of any case of this doctrine actually being implemented.

As well as an all around asshole and mean SOB. Look the Mormon god, according the Joseph Smith’s teaching, all children under the age of eight are innocent and are not capable of conscious sin. Hence the killing of them is an act which requires blood atonement. However, God goes around and slaughters them to make a point:
In the Book of Mormon, after Jesus is crucified in Jerusalem, he causes great calamities in the Americas because of disbelief

Because some human said that applied to a human and wrote it has nothing to do with a God. Just as there are fear mongers today, one can use their own mind. Just because some one wrote something or taught something about a god doesn’t mean it it is of any God.

[TokyoBayer]

Some more concerning Mormonism and its various doctrines concerning when God permits or requires one to kill.

In the Book of Mormon, produced by Joseph Smith in 1829, Nephi, the main character of the early section, and his brothers are told by their father to obtain some brass plates.

In the book of First Nephi, chapters three and four, Laban is described as a notable citizen of Jerusalem who commanded great wealth and many servants. Among his possessions was a set of brass plates containing the genealogy of Lehi, a major character in the early portion of the Book of Mormon. Lehi, having left the city with his family in response to God’s command, enjoined his four sons to return to Jerusalem and retrieve them: “For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.”[2] Lehi furthermore stated that this injunction did not originate with himself, but with the Lord, who had spoken to him on this matter in a dream.

After a number of adventure, Nephi goes back himself.

Undaunted, Nephi slipped back into Jerusalem alone that night, where he soon found Laban lying unconscious in a drunken stupor. The Spirit of God told Nephi to kill Laban with his own sword and seize the records, saying “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.”[9] After complying, Nephi disguised himself as Laban and entered his house. There he found one of Laban’s servants, Zoram, whom he commanded to retrieve the brass plates[10] and to follow him out of the city.[11] Zoram obeyed, joining Nephi and his family in their journey to the New World.

Rather than attempt to rewrite this grotesque episode for modern sensibilities like the Mormon church did with a rather blatant racial comment, or edit it out to reflect later doctrine, as was done with other parts, this not only been left untouched, but also used by the top leadership for as object lesson.

Mormonism is fundamentally an eschatological (a two-bit word being the end of the world) sect, hence the official name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Smith taught the the Second Coming would occur in the lifetime of his contemporaries, if not within his life. Brigham Young and subsequent prophets also expected the end of the world.

In the Mormon view of the Apocalypse, the forces of good and evil will fight, and if you are not with us, you are against us. In The Origin of Satan, Elaine Pagels explains how first Jewish sects such as the Essenes and then later the early Christians vilified their enemies by identifying them as in league with the devil. It’s not too far of a leap to view them as targets to kill.

This is perhaps one of the largest differences between people within the cult and those outside. Mormons simply do not see anything wrong with executing an incapacitated man, seemingly unnecessarily, if commanded to by God. The reason stating “seemingly unnecessarily” is that it could very well have been unnecessary if God and cared more about the life of one man over the object lesson for another.

After killing Laban, Nephi puts on his bloody clothes and tricks the servant. If God had gotten Laban passed-out drunk to allow him to be killed, then let Nephi just take the clothes?

Nope, as explain by a modern Mormon prophet killing someone is a test by the Mormon God which Mormons should be prepared to make.

"A bitter test? A desire to shrink? Sound familiar? We don’t know why those plates could not have been obtained some other way-perhaps accidently left at the plate polishers one night, or maybe falling off the back of Laban’s chariot on a Sabbath afternoon drive. For that matter, why didn’t Nephi just leave this story out of the book altogether?.. It is not intended that either Nephi or we be spared the struggle of this account.

"I believe that story was placed in the very opening verses of a 531-page book and then told in painfully specific detail in order to focus every reader of that record on the absolutely fundamental gospel issue of obedience and submission to the communicated will of the Lord. If Nephi cannot yield to this terribly painful command, if he cannot bring himself to obey, then it is entirely probable that he can never succeed or survive in the tasks that lie just ahead.

“‘I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded.’ (1 Nephi 3:7.) I confess that I wince a little when I hear that promise quoted so casually among us. Jesus knew what that kind of commitment would entail and so now does Nephi. And so will a host of others before it is over. That vow took Christ to the cross on Calvary and it remains at the heart of every Christian covenant. ‘I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded’? Well, we shall see.” (Jeffrey R. Holland and Patricia T. Holland, On Earth As It Is in Heaven, p. 139.)

That, in a nutshell is one of the most compelling reasons to reject that particular brand of hatred.

Because, as Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism said:

@Joseph Smith

That which is wrong under any circumstance may be and often is, right under another…Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 255-256 as taken from Latter-day Commentary on the Book of Mormon compiled by K. Douglas Bassett, p. 17)

[Voyager]

@monavis

Because some human said that applied to a human and wrote it has nothing to do with a God. Just as there are fear mongers today, one can use their own mind. Just because some one wrote something or taught something about a god doesn’t mean it it is of any God.

Since any thing God supposedly said comes from what human wrote down, none of it has any validity. Works for me. If God wants to tell us something, he can get off his duff and show up. The Simpsons marathon has to end some time.

[sisu]

@Voyager

And 28% of Americans are literalists. Cite

I’m sure that the majority of people in your liberal church have no problem with science. But you can’t scale that to the entire country.
Did you watch the 2012 Republican presidential debates? Where a majority (vast majority) of candidates rejected evolution? I don’t know if that was because they were stupid and ignorant or because they were appealing to the base, but either choice is scary.

And to my point, in the USA maybe but not the majority of worldwide Christians.

[Voyager]

@sisu

And to my point, in the USA maybe but not the majority of worldwide Christians.

Cite? There is significant creationism in Islam also.
While the official position of the Catholic Church is reasonable, I have no idea what Catholics in general think.

[TokyoBayer]

@monavis

Because some human said that applied to a human and wrote it has nothing to do with a God. Just as there are fear mongers today, one can use their own mind. Just because some one wrote something or taught something about a god doesn’t mean it it is of any God.

Is there any religious tradition which both believes in a god or gods and in which everyone receives the same message from the god or gods? If not, then how can one tell which messages are real messages from a god or gods and what are not?