Posted by:
Nightingale
(
)
Date: April 03, 2020 05:36PM
iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By GC I think you mean General Conference?
Correct.
As an aside, I avoided using GC for a long time to refer Mormon General Conference. In nursing, we used GC to denote a patient's lab results indicating positive for gonococcus (the bacteria that causes gonorrhea). Therefore, I felt rude using GC for general conference. But I'm over it now. Besides, it's a common abbreviation used on this site.
> If it is going to be a standard priest at the
> podium talk, I am not interested, such as Jesus
> said this and Jesus said that. That kind of stuff
> does not mean much to me. The person who says
> “it” is not important at all. What is
> important is what is said, what is the reason for
> saying it, can you provide a rational reason, can
> you provide evidence, can we sit down at the table
> of “society” and discuss it like adults and
> come to a decision.
Mormons don't have priests in the sense that nevermos may mean, such as Catholic priests. I never did figure out the hierarchy of the 70s and various presidents and stake this and that. Because they do their ruling bodies in threes it seems redundant and confusing to me. The talks will be standard Mormon fare but not much about Jesus, in my experience (not that I saw that many GCs). There is usually a LOT about Joseph Smith and about missionary work and how successful the church's outreach is. I'm not the expert around here about what goes on at conference. I can't think of anything new or inspiring that ever struck me. I think there is a general opinion, at least amongst exmos, that there is a lot of hype about GC and not much delivery - I never found it spiritual or innovative or stimulating or exciting or educational or inspiring at all. A lot of noise and hype about nothing.
> No. Instead, the Bible is just a set of
> injunctions. No justification is given for the
> rules. Some of the commands are useless such as
> don’t steel, don’t murder.
I don't know what you mean by 'useless'. Of course, most people live by those ideals anyway. In that way, many of religion's basic tenets are obvious and widespread.
> It does not offer in technical, scientific,
> engineering information about this universe. That
> makes sense to me since I am an atheist.
I can relate to that. Of course, many Christians feel that it contains all the answers and may impute more to it than is literally there.
> Don’t eat pigs, shellfish and a few other
> animals. What a bunch of silly sounding rules. How
> about explaining why I should not? What is the
> problem? It just saying it is not clean to you.
> What do you mean by clean Mr Doctor or Mr
> Universe? Is it supposed to be a secret?
> Then Jesus comes along and suddenly, all those
> rules go out the window.
I'm not a Bible scholar, it goes without saying, or even a lay expert, by any means. The way I learned the interpretations of the Bible, from various Christian denominations, fundamentalist and more mainstream evangelical, is that the Old Testament rules, that you mention above, applied to the Jews. I learned that apparently in those times the injunction against certain foods was to protect them from contaminated food. That could be totally wrong but that is the meaning I learned. So it was taught by some groups that the injunctions were God's way of protecting his people (the Jews). It could have been literal at some point and later adopted a spiritual meaning.
The way I learned it as a Christian is that yes, when Jesus "came along", "all those rules go out the window", because "Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law". According to Christians. That is not a Jewish teaching as I understand it. Hence the big divide between the two faiths on the subject of Jesus.
I sure hope I am not giving a totally warped interpretation here, leading to misinformation. But I'm just saying the way I learned it, or how I understood what was being taught by various Christian denominations I attended.
> These religions claim to come from some super
> hyper intelligent being but there is nothing
> intellectual in it. It can’t even write his own
> book, make his own VHS or DVD or appear live on TV
> or make some extremely beautiful art, beautiful
> music.
Many people consider Christian art and monuments to be beautiful. I think of cathedrals and other landmarks to be in this category. Stained glass windows. Churches and cathedrals I have seen in England (London) and France (Paris). Of course, if a person is totally turned off religion they may not seem so attractive. I enjoy them as history as much as art, not from any deep religious attraction. In fact, the way I feel about some religions, there is a stain on some of them, definitely. But as pure ingenuity and beauty (in construction: Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, for instance; Westminster Abbey in London also) as well as history, I appreciate them.
As for music, there is some Christian music I enjoy and a few hymns and as I mentioned here recently, Bach's Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring is my favourite piece. I think it's surpassingly beautiful.
> Don’t get me wrong. I am interested in learning
> about religion and the people.
> However, I want the full facts. There were
> multiple claims by Joseph Smith: one of them is
> with 1 Jesus, then there is one with Jesus and his
> god, then something about 3 guys.
"Something about 3 guys" LOL. That's among the best summaries I have heard of Mormonism! As I said above, they do everything in threes. I, for one, found it very confusing.
> I want to see the original papers, original
> photos.
I think it's possible to see facsimiles or repros. Original - not sure about that.
> “OK, I'll shut up about it now.”
>
> ==You don’t have to. I am open minded and want
> your version, your point of view.
Thank you. Is there something else I left out that you are wondering about?
> “Trying not to be rude. :)”
> ==In my experience, that is not possible. Theists
> will get offended.
LOL - I am in the theist camp still. Not affiliated with any particular denomination any more though. So I guess you could say I'm in no wo/man's land, as I'm among the great Undecided crowd.
I try not to be too rude or condemnatory about other religions as it would be unseemly of me, in my opinion. And perhaps silly - to criticize their faith beliefs while holding fast to my own.
I can see both sides to it all. Often a strange, even uncomfortable, middle ground to be on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2020 06:04PM by Nightingale.