So… why can’t the Bible be amended via the Johannine Comma?
The underwear thing is no different than the goofy headgear that other religions espouse. Personally, it seems more of a practical joke that God did on his followers to allow them to be pointed at and laughed about.
But most followers are brainwashed from an early age into the idiosyncrasies of their religions. Dawkins speaks on this at length calling it child abuse. I would disagree if it was only about wearing special underwear, but it isn’t as you’ve pointed out.
I think the question should be asked, “If you are willing to believe the shyster who created your religion, then what other credulous issues will you take on faith while you are in office?” The same would go for Scientologists. Yet, one is a valid religion and the other a dangerous cult.
That’s because more is at play than a simple statement of belief structures. If we were simply talking beliefs, of course Xenu is no more fantastic than Jesus is no more fantastic than Vishnu is no more fantastic than Ahura Mazda is no more fantastic than…
But when you look at how a religion actually behaves, you an determine if it’s detrimental (a dangerous cult) or a religious institution. It’s isn’t Scientology’s beliefs that mark them as a dangerous cult, it’s their practices from Fair Game to what goes on at the Sea Org and how their employees are treated, and so on.
But was Mormonism much different than Scientology at its beginning?
No one is saying that they aren’t qualified. If they are 35 years old and a natural born citizen they are qualified. The question is whether there are some beliefs that are so odd that we should question the judgement of people that hold them. I wouldn’t vote for someone who believes that he was anally probed by aliens, that 9/11 was an inside job, or that the Loch Ness monster exists. To me, thinking that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and the lost tribes of Israel made it to North America falls in that camp. Just think of the chain of illogic that needs to be followed to accept those beliefs. It’s not like those are peripheral beliefs, they are at the heart of the Mormon faith.
Honestly I don’t know, I haven’t really studied the early history of that religion. But I’d also argue that it doesn’t matter. Religions are judged by what they are now, and we rightfully tend to roll our eyes at people who claim all Muslims are savages because Mohamad was a warrior, or what have you.
Seems rather unremarkable though in the context of other religious beliefs. At least, it’s not any more strange than the belief that God incarnated Himself as His own Son in order to sacrifice Himself to change laws that He made and could have changed whenever He wanted to. And now everybody has to believe in His Son lest they burn for eternity in a lake of fire, due to God’s infinite love.
Why’s it any weirder to believe that Eden was in the US than to believe that there was a global flood that somehow left not one geological trace or what have you? Now, it’s certainly a different situation when a politician begins making public policy based on religion. Pulling federal funding from any state that teaches evolution or ordering every federally funded museum to smash all of its dinosaur fossils because they’re Satan’s tricks is one thing, but if a politician wears special underwear (or sexy underwear), what do we care?
It just seems like a case of special pleading to draw the line at Eden being in the States but be fine with Eden being, at all.
I don’t think it is wrong to say that some Muslims are savages because of what Mohamed did and said, though.
As most politicians claim some belief in a God, it makes sense to rank them on the nutjob scale. Some are more nutty than others, or their beliefs are. Those that have definite proof that their original leader was a charlatan rank higher on the scale than those that don’t because it is easier to prove that he was a fake. Hubbard, 100% because we essentially have it from his own mouth; Smith, most definitely; Mohamed, probably-based upon how God’s edict tended to be to his benefit; Jesus, not much evidence at all for his existence, let alone if he was a fake.
By fake, I mean someone who actually believes that their words are from God rather than being made up in their own head to fool the rubes.
Care to rank these groups then?
Adventist
Anabaptist
Anglican
Baptist
Buddhist
Catholic
Christian Scientists
Congregationalist
Episcopalian
Hindu
Holiness
Jehovah’s Witness
Jewish
Latter-day Saints
Lutheran
Methodist
Muslim
Orthodox
Pentecostal
Pietist
Presbyterian
Quaker
Reformed
Restorationist
Unitarians
Who says it can’t be? There are lots of people who do accept that emmendation, though they believe (against all evidence) that it’s original to the text. You can try to add to the text if you want. You might have trouble getting people to acept it, but you can try. Your odds of gaining acceptance for your new words would be better if you wrote a whole, new, original book than trying to add on to preexisting texts that people alreafdy know. You would probably still have trouble gaining acceptance, but people have been known to succeed (i.e the Book of Mormon).
The thing is, there aren’t really any rules. It’s all about whatever you can convince people to believe…and people are really stupid.
I have no idea.
I agree. But that is how it works. Time removes the blemishes .I am not saying I approve of it, but that I am sure it will happen.
Would you apply the same logic to any group which doesn’t permit members of one gender to take any position. The NBA only allows men to play. Some scholarships are only available to women? Many militaries don’t allow women in every position. Some counseling centers and other institutions focused on women’s issues won’t allow men to perform certain tasks. And so forth. There has never been a human society in which men and women were considered absolutely equal for all jobs and I doubt there ever will be.
What the Church believes on the particular issue of gender and priests I’m not quite sure, but I’d reckon that it’s simply that in the organization of society we have and the tasks they face, it is preferable to keep the priesthood the way it is. I could speculate about reasons, for instance that given how often secular governments have clergy killed, tortured, imprisoned, or exiled, keeping out women could be a means of protecting women. But the point is that there’s no justification for saying that the Church believes that women are inferior.
If a woman was good enough, she could play in the NBA. As far as I know ,there are no rules against them.
Yes, I most certainly would apply the same logic to any group. I’d likely guess that the NBA feels that women are inferior in terms of either their ability at basketball, or their ability to draw a crowd to matches. Scholarships may be open only to or preferably to women because the college may feel women lack the level of support from schools or society to take on certain degrees. Militaries may feel women are less capable of fighting due to differences in general body type. Counseling centres focusing on women’s issues may feel that men lack the ability to identify as well with women as other women.
Most certainly there has never been such a society. There’s also never been a society without crime; that doesn’t mean we can’t castigate criminal acts when they occur. Nor should we allow the Church to consider women inferior without comment.
That’s a very vague answer. I mean, it’s probably correct, but it’s still very vague. What tasks make gender important? What about the organisation of society makes gender important?
Perhaps more importantly, if you don’t know for sure, how is it you can be so very sure that the Church doesn’t consider women inferior?
With your example reason there, it would imply that the Church believes women lack the ability to protect themselves, or that men are lacking in importance to protect. Again, i’m very confused that you’re so prepared to declare that there is no justification for saying something about the Church’s motivations - without knowing what they Church’s motivations are. I don’t think I would be prepared to declare such a strong position based upon admitted ignorance.
I have encountered a few religions in my life that the followers left me stunned. I had some good friends who after graduating from the Univ. of Michigan, became followers of Maharji Ji. and his Divine Light Mission. I thought they were nuts. They moved into an Ashram and gave all their earnings to the Mission and lived like paupers. Then ,The Perfect Teacher gave a talk at the Astro Dome. When I saw he was staying in a 6500 dollar a day room. i pointed it out . They actually could justify it in their own minds . They said in the big picture it was not much money. He was divine after all, and we could not judge him. I thought they were nuts. These were smart, educated, well off suburbanites.
So in my Hierarchy of stupid religions, the Divine Light is near the top. Not too far from that is the Scientologists ,followed by Mormons. A lot of the Televangelists are in the same grouping. I saw a reverend on Sunday morning Tv selling blessed rubber bands to his followers. He didn’t think enough of them to buy a decent trinket.
The Catholics should have been at the Vatican with torches and pitchforks a long time ago. You do not bugger children, cover it up and pay off the victims for their silence and keep credibility in my book. In no way can they justify their actions. How many millions of dollars were cribbed from collection plates to pay for lawyers fees, court costs and payoffs? Yet they continued to cover it up. It was not a miscalculation. It was a fundamental, anti-religious lie. You can not get back from where they went.
Category:Religious scandals - Wikipedia A small compilation of religious scandals, including the Mountain Massacre of the Mormons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals And the TV thieves.
Women to blame for earthquakes, says Iran cleric | Iran | The Guardian These guys are not exempt from stupid religious crap either. But when a leader says something like this, how can anyone listen to him again? Yet the followers will be back on their knees getting his wisdom tomorrow.
gonzomax: Didn’t you already do the RO thing about Mountain Meadows and find out that there was no evidence that the perpetrators were anyone else other than the locals?
I don’t much mind the religion of the candidate in an election but I would not vote for a Satanist (either LaVeyan or Luciferian) because I believe anyone who believes in such a negative philosophy should not lead a nation.