since some LDS beliefs are being pointed at....

[ProdigalJunkMail]

How about these :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/world/middleeast/12fatwa.html?_r=3&hp=&oref&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Breastfeed a coworker five times and you are now relatives...
And did you know that drinking some urine is a blessing?

sP

[murielm99]

1. All sorts of Christian bashing

goes on at DU. Sometimes I find it offensive, but I ignore it. I think the anonymity here makes some non-believers behave in ways they would not behave normally.

I made a comment about the garments in another thread. I consider Mormonism a cult, and I do not have the same respect for a cult that I have for other major religions.

I am a Christian, but I have been known to bash fundie Christians. I think their religious behavior is cult-like as well.

Of course religions ask one to believe things that defy logic. That is what faith is. But given the amount of Christian bashing that goes on here, I am not going to hold back on my own opinions. Put me on ignore if you don't like it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. nope...got no one on ignore

but bashing of any sort of religion is supposed to be prohibited here...let's face it; the definition of cult is purely a matter of perspective.

sP

[bpeale]

45. anyone here actually READ the Pearl of Great Price?

that's one of the mormons quad books on a level with the bible. that is pure science fiction. mormonism is a cult. it took me more than 10 years to get my name removed from their roles as a member. they are a cult. i can say that because i WAS a member for 10 years. some things i just cannot believe.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

48. as I said...

it is all a matter of perspective. My religion=your cult. I am not now nor have I ever been Mormon...but I would be willing to bet that they don't call themselve a cult.

sP

[CreekDog]

58. I define a cult as a group that needs you more than you need them

Until you join that is...

[Deep13]

3. Not Christians, Christianity.

Pointing out objective facts may be critical, but it is hardly defamatory. What I find bizarre is how anyone who relies on subjective faith can point to another branch of his or her own religion and call it cult-like. They believe in God, Jesus and the Bible. The only difference between fundamentalist denominations and main-stream ones is that they are willing to follow the logical conclusions of their faith in their daily lives.

[jwirr]

7. The issue of Jesus is exactly where the difference comes in.

Christianity is a group of religions that define Jesus as a part of the Triune God and see Him as the savior of all. Several religions that call themselves Christian do not see it that way. All we are saying is that Christianity has certain criteria that identify it as one religion. Mormons, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Jewish religion all define themselves outside of this criteria. For that reason they are seen as cults (other religions). Needless to say we find enough to fight about within the older Christian definitions without adding another group that separates us further.

[Deep13]

17. If I asked Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses...

...if they accept Jesus as their savior, they'll say "No"? I doubt that. You are defining Christianity the way Constantine ordered it defined at Nicea in the year 325. I doubt St. Paul would have defined it that narrowly. Jesus himself, assuming the NT accurately potrays his teachings, considered himself a reformer of Judaism and probably did not intend to start a new religion.

[jwirr]

23. I agree that they say that he is their savior. However, neither of them

see him as the triune God. That was the original meaning of the word Christian and that is all those who reject these two groups as Christian are saying. They are a new group with their own definitions.

[CreekDog]

59. Jesus: I am the way, the truth and the life

Oh, I think Jesus intended to start something new, something surely based on the old, but vastly different.

[Deep13]

75. I don't think so.

I think a complete reading of the canonical gospels shows basically a reformed form of Judaism. When Jesus talks about loving your neighbor and being children of God and being better loved than lilleys who toil not, he means Jews. It is not until we get to Paul's letters do we see the net being thrown wider.

[sneakythomas]

83. I'm an ex-witness

If you ask a witness if Jesus is his savior he'll say "yes" but he won't mean what most professed christians mean by that. Everything a witness says and does is filtered through the teachings of a bunch of old men in Brooklyn. All of their training leads them to think, and use words, in ways radically different from the rest of us.

I think this is true of mormons as well.

Look at it this way: if I said "Howdy ya'll I'm a Democrat and I just love George W. Bush" you'd wonder what I was smoking. This is more or less how lots of Christians feel when they look at mormons and witnesses.

[Radical Activist]

18. The Eastern Orthodox Church

pre-dates Protestantism and has a different view about the nature of the Trinity than the standard Western definition. Why should the definition of a Christian be dependent on a creed about the nature of God that isn't in the Bible and didn't exist in the time of the apostles? I find it amazingly arrogant for anyone to claim they have the right to tell others whether they are Christian or not.

[jwirr]

25. So I can just say I am a Christian no matter what I believe? No rules?

When you cannot define what you believe is there any grounds for calling it faith?

[Radical Activist]

29. I don't think

Mormons or Witnesses have any trouble defining what they believe.

No, I don't think one church gets to make rules for what other churches are allowed to call themselves. If anyone has the right to define who is or is not Christian its Jesus, and since Protestants don't make the claim to receive any kind of direct revelatory communication from God, then I'd say they're in a bad position to pass judgment on that issue.

[fishwax]

33. you can define what you believe

you just can't define what others believe and expect any kind of consensus. There are plenty of non-Mormon, non-JW Christians who believe that mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christians as well.

[Deep13]

36. That was the basis for Gnosticism.

Faith means you belief without proof. It has nothing to do with rules. Frankly, the idea that divinity has earthly rules is a bit strange.

[PassingFair]

101. Now you're catching on! nt

[CreekDog]

60. The reason for the creed was to distinguish the beliefs from new teachings

Just like today, if a new church opens up next to yours and uses all the same words as your church, but the meaning is different, your church would probably need to nail down some definitions to avoid confusion.

That's what Nicea did in 327. And no, I don't buy that it was some concerted apostate effort to take the church away from its teachings.

Heck even Santa Claus bopped some folks for preaching falsely, he wanted to uphold the teachings in the creeds!

[Deep13]

71. I know why.

It was to render orthodox, paternalistic, conventionally organized Christianity an institution that could be used by the crown for political purposes. Indeed Constantine controlled episcopal appointments. It also rended the democratic, unconventional Christianity of gnosticism illegal.

[CreekDog]

84. Gnosticism is not Christianity

It's not even close.

The only way you can say the bible teaches Gnosticism is to say that everything it says really means something else. In other words, Gnosticism tries to hitch its wagon to Christianity's reputation, while ditching Christian teachings.

[Deep13]

97. False. For the first 300 years, Gnosticism was a big part of Christianity.

It is a religion of revelation, not rules. Indeed that was the primary argument against it. There were no offices as they took turns being priests. Whatever Jesus personally told the individual was that person's revealed word of God. And what Gnostics thought God was telling them was pretty bizzare by conventional standards. They did not generally believe in the cricifiction or resurrection. They did not think it was possible to execute a god. Also they were far more concerned with JC's mystical teachings than in redemption of sin. No clergy, no gender roles, communal living, individual revelations with no rules constraining it, no set theology: well, it was too much for the authoritarian Romans.

The description you have sounds like what the early critics wrote about it. For a long time theirs was the only view we had and it has colored the historical view.

[fishwax]

Judaism is a cult?

that's the first time I've ever heard a Christian suggest such a thing.

[0rganism]

54. Am I misreading, or did you just refer to Judaism as a cult?

I've read & heard people bash Judaism for promoting racism before, but this would be the first time I've seen someone call it a cult.

[Radical Activist]

20. That's a great response

that I hope the poster you're responding to thinks about.

"What I find bizarre is how anyone who relies on subjective faith can point to another branch of his or her own religion and call it cult-like."

[spoony]

24. That's rich.

"Objective facts." Lol. And how, exactly, does calling Christians ill-educated, ignorant, backward, inferior, etc. qualify as "pointing out objective facts" or going after "not Christians, Christianity." Hardly anyone in GD presents arguments against the religion, what you do see however is plenty of nose-in-the-air snarky nonsense.

In short, the objective fact is that your post is rubbish.

[Deep13]

34. "how...does calling Christians ill-educated, ignorant, ...etc"

I have never made any such claims. You are violating the 9th Commandment in saying I do.

"Rubbish" is a value judgment, not a fact. Facts are objective and measurable.

[spoony]

64. Lol!

Aside from a chuckle though, tell me where I said YOU said those things. I'm talking about the general state of DU, where the bashing is not done to ideas, it IS--contrary to what you claim--done to the people holding them. Many of whom are loyal Democrats and post here.

And when you're done with that, tell me how I coveted your wife. That's the 9th commandment in Christianity, which is the topic. (And before you even try it, I'm quite aware of the traditional Jewish division of the commandments, but when you're presenting "objective facts" about Christianity, you should at least use their numbering.)

[Deep13]

66. I'm using the first set of Commandments...

...that were destroyed when Moses came down the mountain, not the restored commandment that Moses got later.

I think the way I read your post was reasonable based on what you wrote. Anyway, I did not present any objectives facts about Christianity. Objective facts would include:
-The lineage given for Jesus in two gospels, Matthew and Luke I seem to remember, are different from each other in names and in number of generations.
-If the Holy Spirit is JC's father, then the lineage of Joseph is irrelevant anyway.
-The census mentioned in Matthew did not happen until much later. It did not require a migration. It was ordered by a local official, not Augustus who was already dead.
-People cannot rise from the dead.
-There are no demons to be cast out.
-Water cannot be instantly made into wine.
-Dirt and spit do not cure blindness.
-The canonical gospels were written long after Jesus was dead and not by eyewitnesses.
-The surface tension of water cannot support even a modest-sized person. The alternate translation of walking through the water is more likely.
-The Cult of the Virgin Mary is also based on a mistranslation of a word that means "young woman."

[spoony]

68. The way you misread was unreasonable

based on your eagerness to try to score cheap points on something I never said instead of reading it.

[Deep13]

70. "In short, the objective fact is that your post is rubbish."

You brought up accusations against Christians I never made and then summarized with the aforementioned. Explain to me how I am wrong.

[spoony]

72. Wow.

Alright, I suppose we'll take this slowly eh?

"You brought up accusations against Christians I never made"

That's right, which is probably why...I never said you made them.

"then summarized with the aforementioned"

That's right, calling your post rubbish. It is. Not because you called Christians those names (which, again, no one said you did), but because you replied to a post that said that a lot of Christian bashing goes on at DU with a denial-ridden post about how Christians weren't bashed, just their ideas. THAT is what's rubbish, for the reasons I stated! How you managed to tangle yourself up in that is something I can't explain to you, because you initiated a reply to that poster. It wasn't a defense about yourself, which understandably would be about you, it was an argument against an accusation (a correct one) leveled at the site. The SITE. Not YOU.

Not really that complicated, is it?

[Deep13]

78. "IN SHORT, the objective fact is that your post is rubbish."

The "in short" indicates a summary of the proceeding. Then you state what that summary is: "YOUR post is rubbish."

I rely don't mind disagreement, but please don't tell me I did not read what I read.

[spoony]

81. I'm in a pretty good position to tell you what you did not read.

Because I wrote what I wrote. And this is really becoming tedious, I truly hope you're just arguing for argument's sake and don't really still not get this:

"In short" does indicate a summary of the preceeding (not proceeding). The preceeding being a list of things Christians are called here that disproves what you wrote about the belief not the people being bashed. You will note that still, no words have magically appeared that accuse you of anything but making a poor argument in response to that poster.

Holy cow.

[fishwax]

31. I don't think they follow the logical conclusions of their faith in their daily lives

certainly not any more than "mainstream" christians necessarily do. I think fundamentalists follow their faith to different conclusions in their daily lives, and that those conclusions are often emotional, not logical. I don't buy the line that their more religious or "truer" to the religion.

But I agree with your second sentence: "What I find bizarre is how anyone who relies on subjective faith can point to another branch of his or her own religion and call it cult-like."

[Deep13]

42. The basic premise of fundamentalism and of main-stream religion...

...are the same. The difference is that Fundamentalists take it seriously. If one believes that JC will return to judge the living and the dead, then a Rapture Ready website makes sense. Promoting policies that accelerate the End Times makes sense too. If you think original sin of Adam and Eve is the cause of the damnation of humanity (as if we can be responsible for our ancestors), then a scientific theory that disproves Adam and Eve and, therefore, original sin, is evil and ungodly. If you accept St. Paul's idea that suffering makes one holy, then burning sinners alive makes sense too.

If you believe Allah wants Muslims to sacrifice in the fight against the relatively secular West, then taking the fight to the enemy by flying airliners into buildings is perfectly logical.

The problem is not the specific belief, it is belief itself. The Founders of this nation understood that. All of them were skeptical of religion. Most were deists. Jefferson may have been our first atheist president. In those days, intellectuals conceded that god probably started the wheel rolling because they could not conceive of any other way for life on Earth to get started. Darwinism and modern cosmology have removed that reservation.

Edit: God told me to run the spell-checker.

[fishwax]

80. that still doesn't support the claim that only fundies follow faith to the logical conclusion

If one believes that JC will return to judge the living and the dead, then a Rapture Ready website makes sense.
Perhaps that makes sense, if you accept certain interpretations of specific passages in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing that makes sense. There are many mainstream religions that don't even believe in the rapture--not because they don't take their religion seriously or because they haven't followed it to its logical conclusion, but because they interpret (or even relate to) the Bible differently. "Promoting policies that accelerate the End Times" makes sense if you believe that the end times are a good thing and ought to be here as soon as possible, or if you believe that we have no other responsibilities (such as alleviating suffering) other than to see the end times. Not all Christians believe that. (Hell, not even all Christians believe in an end times--some Christians are post-millennial). That doesn't mean those folks don't take their religion seriously or don't follow it to its logical conclusion. Some mainstream Christians, for instance, follow their faith to its logical conclusion (to at least the same degree that fundamentalists do) in working for progressive reform, in giving to charity, etc.

The bulk of your suggestions are possible--but by no means inevitable--conclusions. For instance, to believe that burning sinners alive makes sense, you would have to not only accept Paul's suggestion but also reject (or rationalize away) contradicting passages (like judge not, etc.). Flying airliners into buildings is perfectly logical if you believe Allah wants Muslims to sacrifice AND if you reject (or rationalize away) prohibitions against suicide or harming innocents in the Koran. The process of rationalizing away the contradictions, I believe, relies largely on emotion rather than logic (it is religion, after all), though I'm willing to concede that there are fundamentalists of all religions who attempt a wholly intellectual defense of their position.

I don't disagree with you about the skepticism of the founding fathers or of the comparative advantage of modern cosmology, though I 'm not sure it's true that the founding fathers saw belief itself (and not a specific relationship to belief) as "the problem".

Edit: God told me to run the spell-checker.:rofl: (and thanks for reminding me to do the same)

[Crowdance]

4. That metallic taste

must be the irony.

What criteria separate a cult from a "major religion?"

[Deep13]

15. Religion = cult that survives 100 years after death of founder.

That's all.

[Philosoraptor]

16. ALL religions fall under the dictionary description of a cult

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people

[Liberal Veteran]

30. My favorite definition of "cult": A religion without political power or influence

The LDS would hardly fit that category.

Of course that would be the vulgar usage of the term "cult" as opposed to the official definition that would include all religions as cults. Really, if you think about it, at any point in time this or that religion has been derided as a cult (Protestant/Catholics view Mormons as cultist, Catholics used to and maybe still do officially, view Protestants as cultists, Christianity itself was likely dismissed early on as a cult).

[murielm99]

51. What is all this bullshit

going on here?

With all the snarking about religion at DU on a daily basis, I thought maybe some people here knew what they were talking about. I studied religion a bit in college. I learned a bit about cults, too, because the Moonies were just starting to be noticed when I was a student.

There are 12 major religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism, Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, and Jaimism. They can be divided into classes: Abrahamic, Dharmic, Taoic, and other. Other includes folk religions.

A cult has the following characteristics:

1) A self-appointed leader who puts himself in the place of God or a socially accepted concept of divinity. Maybe they don't SAY they are God. Jim Jones did not. He was ordained by the Disciples of Christ. But he certainly became God to all those people who were willing to poison themselves for him. Mormons may say they are Christians, but they put Joseph Smith and their current prophet in the position of authority over their followers' lives.

2)Cults exert totalitarian control over their followers. They do not want them to have lives outside of their fellowship. Notice how Mormons are organized. Take a good look at their boundary issues. Look at how Jim Jones took his people to an isolated country to keep control of them.

3)No questioning of teaching or leadership is allowed. This can result in expulsion from the group, ostracism, or worse. If I question teachings or leadership in the United Methodist church, it will cause discussion, not exclusion.

4)Cults practice secrecy toward the outside world. They do not share their beliefs and practices with anyone on the outside. They give out only half-truths about what they do.

(Are "loyal Bushies" cult members)?

I do not think my religion has a monopoly on truth. But, as I said up-thread, I see Christianity bashed around here on a regular basis. I generally ignore it. I think the LDS church is a cult, according to accepted definitions, and I am not going to be polite and quiet about it.

[FreeState]

63. A Mormon responds

Yes there are Mormons here. I try to respond when I can however it get s a little overwhelming and very frustrating with all the miss information and bigotry towards the religion on here.

1) A self-appointed leader who puts himself in the place of God or a socially accepted concept of divinity. Maybe they don't SAY they are God. Jim Jones did not. He was ordained by the Disciples of Christ. But he certainly became God to all those people who were willing to poison themselves for him. Mormons may say they are Christians, but they put Joseph Smith and their current prophet in the position of authority over their followers' lives.

Joseph Smith is not placed above God by any means. Your comments about JS and the current leaders is very miss informed. The church teaches that only the current Prophet can get revelation that pertains to the whole church and only individuals can get revelation for themselves or their families. The church tells its members to test what the leaders say and get their own answers - in fact this is one of the first things missionaries teach non members. Pray and get your own answers. I guess Catholics are a cult to because they put the Pope in a position of authority?

2)Cults exert totalitarian control over their followers. They do not want them to have lives outside of their fellowship. Notice how Mormons are organized. Take a good look at their boundary issues. Look at how Jim Jones took his people to an isolated country to keep control of them.

What in the world are you talking about here? I have lived in many different states and countries and never one been told to not have a life outside of the church. Every member of my family has interest and activities outside of the church. The church could care less and actually encourages it.

What boundary issues are you talking about?

3)No questioning of teaching or leadership is allowed. This can result in expulsion from the group, ostracism, or worse. If I question teachings or leadership in the United Methodist church, it will cause discussion, not exclusion.

The church teaches you to study everything and question everything for yourself - this is a fundamental belief taught in the Book of Mormon. Granted the church does not like members to publicly question the leaders - but that is a far cry from not being allowed to question. In fact any member can set up appointments with local church leaders and question all they want.

BTW I have publicly questioned the church and have had no repercussions. Im still a member of record and never been excommunicated even though I have publicly questioned some teachings in papers in Utah. The church has kicked members out, however that is usually when the person publicly states a belief that is contrary to the church's official teachings in a manner where they personally could be construed as someone speaking for the church (think BYU professors).

4)Cults practice secrecy toward the outside world. They do not share their beliefs and practices with anyone on the outside. They give out only half-truths about what they do.

You mean the missionaries out there are not sharing their beliefs with non member strangers? Guess I wasted 2 years of my life just walking around not saying anything then. In-fact the church is so secret about its temple ceremony that you can look it up in the library of congress word for word. That sounds like they are hiding something there LOL. The whole ceremony is online and the church has never once sued to get it off line - they are trying really hard I guess to keep it secret /sarcasm.

I do not think my religion has a monopoly on truth. But, as I said up-thread, I see Christianity bashed around here on a regular basis. I generally ignore it. I think the LDS church is a cult, according to accepted definitions, and I am not going to be polite and quiet about it.

You don't have to be quiet about it, but don't expect those of us that are LDS to just be quiet about your miss interpreted statements.

(For full disclosure I am not an active member - my whole family is - I was active for 25 years, served a mission etc. I consider myself a member even though I do not follow or believe in the teachings any-longer. My family has been members since the beginning of the church - I could no more remove the LDS culture from myself than I could the American culture I grew up with. I do not agree with a lot of what the church does, however it really irritates me when people spread miss information about the church and I try to correct it when ever I see it)

[Marrah_G]

108. I think people are mistaking the LDS for FLDS

I would say FLDS would count as a cult, LDS would count as just a different religion.

[Crowdance]

67. So, to tie up the loose ends

Religions that are not "Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism, Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, and Jaimism. They can be divided into classes: Abrahamic, Dharmic, Taoic, and other..." are actually "cults" not religions? Or, are you simply saying that because they are not on the generally accepted list of major religions that it's ok to bash them?

Are you also saying that "religions" not part of the major twelve are cults, and so must by definition engage in the evils of placing someone above god, exeterting totalitarian control, no questioning and practicing secrecy? That part is a little confusing.

I'm not a Christian, nor do I make your list of major religions (I'm feeling very much the "other"), and so I ask this final question: is there something in the bible about "turning the other cheek?" Or is that idea a widespread cultural understanding?

[spoony]

69. Wow, a whole army of strawmen

What on earth will you do with them all? Invade Oz?

The poster clearly laid out traits characteristic of a cult, apart from summing up the world's major religions. Does your belief system fit those traits? If not, they weren't calling it a cult.

And that was a terribly played "other cheek" offence to boot. What a mess!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Um..., the religions he named also fit his definitions of cult.

"1) A self-appointed leader who puts himself in the place of God or a socially accepted concept of divinity. Maybe they don't SAY they are God. Jim Jones did not. He was ordained by the Disciples of Christ. But he certainly became God to all those people who were willing to poison themselves for him. Mormons may say they are Christians, but they put Joseph Smith and their current prophet in the position of authority over their followers' lives.

2)Cults exert totalitarian control over their followers. They do not want them to have lives outside of their fellowship. Notice how Mormons are organized. Take a good look at their boundary issues. Look at how Jim Jones took his people to an isolated country to keep control of them.

3)No questioning of teaching or leadership is allowed. This can result in expulsion from the group, ostracism, or worse. If I question teachings or leadership in the United Methodist church, it will cause discussion, not exclusion.

4)Cults practice secrecy toward the outside world. They do not share their beliefs and practices with anyone on the outside. They give out only half-truths about what they do."

Sounds like catholicism to me.

Mormonism certainly has far more members than many of the "major world religions" he listed.

[spoony]

92. Well allow me to help you with the mystery

that you think is Catholicism. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I don't know how they smuggled that out alive, but may these secret documents known only to a few privileged aides to the Pope help you better understand that ultra-secretive band of sorcerers!

Personally I couldn't give a fig less what people call a cult.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. I give a fig when people slur religions as "cult"

And they aren't even using their own standards for the differences between cults and religions.

Which particularly point of those four do you think fits for mormons, but not catholics?

[Deep13]

73. "I think the LDS church is a cult, according to accepted definitions,..."

According to accepted definitions, all monotheistic religions are cults.

[jwirr]

5. Totally agree with you. Thanks.

[WilliamPitt]

6. LDS?

[jwirr]

9. Latter Day Saints.

[Skinner]

10. LDS=Latter Day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Otherwise known as Mormons.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Of course.

Sorry, the pistons aren't firing quite yet this morning. Thanks.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. No, wait, let me guess. All you could think of is LSD. -nt

[Frank Cannon]

56. I happened to see "Star Trek IV" in a theater in Southern Idaho

AKA, a suburb of Salt Lake City.

There's a scene in the movie where Kirk, trying to operate in mid-1980s San Francisco, needs to explain the bizarre behavior of Spock to a passerby. "You'll have to excuse my friend," he says. "He had a little too much LDS back in the '60s."

The crowd went crazy. It was the biggest laugh of the whole movie.

[CreekDog]

61. I thought Southern Idaho is properly called Northern Utah

This from a former Provo/Happy Valley resident.

[Skinner]

8. To be fair, the article makes clear that both of those "beliefs" you cite were ridiculed...

...when they were handed down, and later retracted. It also makes clear that that they are not official dogma of Islam, but rather the opinions of individuals.

Having said that, the article does show some of the inanity that occurs in the name of religion. While the article is about Islam, it could pertain to just about any faith. It's actually a really interesting read.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

43. that is part of the reason for posting the link

the Fatwah comes from a religious leader...and then is ridiculed by person who profess the same Islamic faith. And that is just fine and dandy. But, the person who posted the information about the LDS practice of "temple garments" inspired a thread that lead to several posts of misinformation about the LDS practice. I just find it all very interesting...

May I ask why you felt the need to 'ammend' my post with your own points? Not that you shouldn't have, by any means. However, you didn't take the time to say anything interesting on the LDS thread (which is now strangely locked).

sP

[Skinner]

76. "Amend" your post? I thought I was simply posting a reply.

I never saw the "temple garments" thread, and I don't know anything about it. Which is one reason why I did not reply there.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

85. sorry...'amend' was not meant in a negative way

just that you added to the post with your comment and THEN commented on it. No biggie; as you know, it happens here all the time when people add additional facts and the like. The temple garments thread was similar in nature to my post, pointing out what might be seen as an oddity of faith and religion...and you mean you don't read every post here ??? :-)

sP

[Solly Mack]

11. Is this a my religion isn't as silly as your religion thing?

I understand that one religion will claim another religion isn't a "true" or "real" religion in order to justify why they feel free to mock other religions

but that little sticky point aside...

If someone doesn't want their religion mocked, it would seem to me they wouldn't mock another religion.

(but that's just me)

I'm not saying that's what you are doing - which is why I asked.


I try and be nice and respectful but when the religious get into pissing contests over what is and isn't a real religion or which religion is or isn't silly, I am tested beyond my limits to restrain my mirth. It just tickles my sardonic bone.

[Philosoraptor]

13. One must sometimes do or wear silly things to be religious.

I suggest we make ALL citizens identify their individual religious stripe with some sort of visible garment, (no undergarments, that's cheating), headgear, full body covering, facial marking, perhaps a large logo or letter on the clothing. Atheists would wear nothing of course.

Just kidding.

[Solly Mack]

14. I see your sardonic bone has been tickled as well

:)

[donsu]

19. my first really good laugh of the day - thanks

nt

[poverlay]

22. Maybe the jews could wear a yellow stars, the homosexuals a pink lambda, etc. etc.? Just an

idea. Ya know, just throwin' it out there... Let me know if you agree with me. :sarcasm:

[CreekDog]

62. One must wear silly things to get a Ph.D

When I got my master's degree, the hooding ceremony looked like something from Alice in Wonderland. And the University of Arizona tradition of silly string added to the weirdness, but was eclipsed by the Ph.D garb.

Surely weirder than anything I've ever seen in church.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. not mocking any religion...actually running a little test

yes, any religion looks strange to the outsider or the uninitiated (at least parts of it do). But some here post with the obvious intent to say, "look how goofy those whacky religionists are." And when they do...they get the pilers-on that join in and agree wholeheartedly. Just testing the waters to see if it was consistent from religion to religion...

sP

[Solly Mack]

38. Okies

[Bluebear]

52. 'actually running a little test' - ooh goody we're lab rats. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

57. it is not so much what you are called...but what you respond to

that matters...

sP

[PassingFair]

102. YOU probably crack YOUR eggs on the LARGE end.

HERETIC!

:)

[Solly Mack]

105. Ha! Nope lololol

I open the carton and pour them out :)

[PassingFair]

106. You will need re-education!

Report at once.

[Solly Mack]

109. I'm gonna hafta take a pass on that

Thanks,though. Looks like fun.


:::easing away slowly:::

:P

[PassingFair]

110. All right, we'll start you off with THESE guys...

The Comfy Chair!

[Solly Mack]

111. LMAO!! I'm game

[Kosmo]

21. As an atheist, all the worlds religions look like cults.

They all recruit. The major cults of the world are recruiting new members heavily in the southern hemisphere. Perhaps those who do not have access to quality educations and strong infrastructure are easier targets.
They all fundraiser. Give till it hurts, brothers and sisters, cause God needs you cash for his interest bearing savings account.
They all indoctrinate their followers. Whether it be through Confirmation, Catechism, or some other ritual. After a period of brain washing through a weekly class or intense sensory experiences (remember standing in a room with no lights on saying the Lord's prayer over and over with a large group of people at church camp) followed by the indoctrination ceremony.
What it boils down to for me is that they are all a cult, some are just more popular and a hell of a lot richer.

[blondeatlast]

26. Substitute practices, rituals, and interpretations in sports for any that

occur in religion and they look just as bizarre away from the playing field.

We have dress codes, rituals (the coin-flip, throwing out the first ball, the National Anthem/Take Me Out to the Ball Game (speaking of which, can we please get "Ball Game" back?!)), etc.

There are also numerous entities interpreting said rules and rituals their own way (NBA versus NCAA, officials disagreeing with other officials).

We like ot mock the prescibed practices of others, but we never seem to look at the fact that many of us indulge in some strange stuff ourselves.

[Liberal Veteran]

27. I'm not sure it's relevant to point to an entirely different religion that way.

More appropriate would be point out some the oddities within the various sects of Christianity:

Such as the vows of chastity nuns and Catholic priests make or that business of sainthood.

Or Pentecostal sects that do that speaking in tongues thing.

And the Southern Baptists doing that faith healing stuff.

As blondeatlast basically said, EVERY religion and even various sects of a specific religion look odd from the outside.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

49. for my purposes here today it WAS important that I pick

a non-christian religion...this was the most recently publicized thing I could find.

sP

[LibertyLover]

28. Interesting article -

The fatwa about the adopted child however disturbed me very much. And where would you get the Prophet's urine to drink now?

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Perhaps it's sorta like transubstantiation?

Where the wine and unleavened bread are prayed over and become the real blood and flesh of Christ.

You take a glass of cream soda, pray the magic words over it and "Voila!"....it becomes Prophet's urine.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. are you suggesting that cream soda tastes like urine?

that offendeth me greatly... :-)

sP

[Az]

40. What a person believes is not as important as what they do

There are more than enough beliefs to go around. We have to live with the fact that not everyone believes the same thing as we do. We may wish their views were closer to ours. But the fact remains that there are plenty of beliefs to go around. Its not what you believe but rather what you do with it. If your beliefs lead you to be tolerant, moral, and helpful to others then I don't care if you believe it is God, Satan, or Smurfs telling you to be that way.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. thanks for one of the most reasoned responses on here

i should have expected as much from you. :-)

sP

[Deep13]

44. Yes, except what one believes colors his or her whole outlook...

...and influences what he or she does.

I'm aware of an experiment conducted in Israel where children were asked if it was okay for Joshua to kill everyone in a certain city because God told him to do so. Most of the children said it was okay. Many of the dissenters said the reason it was not okay was because there was a risk of being contaminated by the conquered citizens' pagan religion. The same question asked to another Israeli class but substituting the names for Chinese names and hardly anyone thought the genocide was okay. Dawkins describes the experiment in detail in his book The God Delusion.

To err is human. To commit autrocities requires faith.

[Az]

50. Morality and connection

To set a people against another people it is necessary to first convince them that they are not human. Or at the very least not worthy of the rights to life that those around us are. They must be cast as evil or corrupt.

This is because our sense of morality extends to those we consider ourselves to be connected to. Religion can play a part in either separating or connecting people. The existence of religion or more specifically dogma does not automatically lead to conflict. But it can certainly become a major factor in creating conflict by establishing sides upon which to draw boarders.

[mondo joe]

55. And yet there is no predicting HOW it will color one's outlook.

Pat Robertson is a Christian. So is Bill Clinton. So is Ted Kennedy.

One can't reliably predict based on their faith what their outlook will be.

[Deep13]

104. As a group there is a tendency to support the in-group...

...and oppose the outgroup.

[spoony]

65. First of all

what in hell is an autrocity? And second please do tell what "faith" Stalin was operating under.

[Az]

74. Dogmas are not isolated to religions

Anytime someone claims to have the truth that cannot be questioned the potential for danger arises.

[spoony]

77. Right, I'm sure "faith" there

, following an entire post about religion, meant anything but religious faith. Because other ideologies are often called "faith," eh? C'mon.

[Az]

79. Not sure what you are trying to say

I have not made any comment condemning faith. If you have issues with other posts then I am curious as to why I am being singled out for them.

I believe my comment made sense. Communism created a form of dogma that could not be questioned. It wound up bumping heads with other dogmas and due to its control of the society it purged the other dogmas to the best of its ability. This is often but not always the course taken when conflicting dogmas bump heads.

[spoony]

82. Sorry mate, you replied to a reply

that said that atrocities require faith to commit. It was clearly about religious belief.

Sorry to misapply your post to that context, as I generally agree with what you wrote. I just wasn't sure if you were trying to tweak that other post to make it seem different from what it said, but you were making a separate point. A good one. Mea culpa.

[Deep13]

107. Bit of a misleading suggestion...

...and one that I have heard before. Stalin's atrocities were not the product of his supposed atheism and more than Hitler's or Napoleon's were the products of their Catholicism. Having said that, all three had novel ideologies that in some ways substituted for religion.

The question this raises is not so much whether nonreligious ideologies can be faith--clearly they can--but whether these leaders even believed what they preached. Was Stalin actually a Marxist or was he just using it to control people's minds? Does it matter?

Ultimately faith means doing and believing what one is told. Whether or not the one doing the telling is faithful himself is almost irrelevant. The public believes it and they will be willing to do anything to sustain that faith. In the middle ages, Europe desired a direct land route to the Far East. No one was going to volunteer to fight for a spice trade. Volunteering to fight for Christ against the Muslims was a different matter. Likewise, no one is going to fight very hard to support one branch of the English royal family over another. But in defending the new reformed church against Catholics (or vice versa) they burnt their neighbors alive.

[BurtWorm]

46. Are you sure that's not LSD beliefs?

:hide:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. some people would say ALL belief require some sort of

hallucinogen. But this thread is a test being run against another thread that I now see is sadly locked. Strange practices all...even mine.

sP

[Bluebear]

53. Are you on the Romney campaign this time? nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

86. excuse me...

what are you trying to say? It is ok to point out the questionable practices of one religion whilst not another? That makes me a member of the Romney campaign? How about this...the campaign to shine light on the weirdness in more than one religion? Would that suffice...

Stick your accusation.

sP

[Bluebear]

88. "Stick your accusation!" - Now is that Christian?

.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

91. probably not...but it is human to be pissed at false

allegations...I don't suppose you considered how just purely shitty the accusation you made was, regardless of your religion or lack thereof? I didn't think so.

sP

[Bluebear]

95. I apologize

I only see you around when it comes to religious conversations, plus I kind of chafe that you are "running little tests" on us.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

96. sorry...I was a little testy about my own issues today

and I don't suppose DU is the place to test my pet theories. Please accept my apology...and I look forward to chafing you on other religious threads and I hope you will chafe back...

sP

[Cleita]

87. When I lived in California, I had Mormon neighbors, worked with

Mormons and had Mormon friends. I liked them as well as I did my Jewish neighbors, co-workers and friends, or Muslim neighbors, co-workers and friends, because although we discussed our differences, we didn't find ourselves having to obey laws that were influenced by any of those religions. However, when I went to Utah, I realized how pervasive the influence was in all phases of the government in Utah almost to the point of it being a theocracy. I know LDS doesn't have a corner of this.

All other religions seem to try to meddle in government when they have a majority in the population. So my gripe isn't what Mormons believe, it's when the beliefs become law then I draw the line. I don't think Mitt Romney will try to bring Mormonism to America like W has brought us protestant fundamentalism and maybe he would even temper the religious aspect down, but I don't like Mitt Romney for being Mitt Romney, not because he's a Mormon.

As far as the breast feeding and urine drinking fatwas, I'm sure most moderate Muslims would look askance at that.

[Iris]

94. Interesting point. But in a local muncipality, or even a state, wouldn't the

make-up of the population influence the laws of that area?

[Cleita]

99. In America it's in violation of the Constitution.

In a perfect world Sharia shouldn't rule predominantly Islamic countries, nor the Vatican predominantly Catholic countries as it has in the past in Italy, Spain and South America. But here in America we supposedly have Constitutional protections against that (in theory) which is why laws about teaching creationism instead of science in school and forbidding women's choice in their fertility options as is happening are coming from religion seeping into our civil statutes and they shouldn't be. In places that are predominantly one religion, there are still the minorities that need protection from that religion.

[Iris]

100. Ah! I see. I was thinking more of local rules and ordinances. Like, say, those

regulating the sale of liquor. Yeah, that is bad stuff and only seems possible because there aren't a lot of people to protest it.

Minority opinions are also supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

90. My mother is LDS

Converted from S Baptist when she married her 2nd husband.
I've been to a few 11:00 am Sunday services with her (special occasions and she's old and doesn't drive)
Here's my take: I've been to alot of different kinds of church services, many denominations, and always had a feel of what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
LDS was different: people talking on cell phones, a click, click, click sound which turned out to be a woman clipping her fingernails (!), kids running around... Nobody paying much attention to what was going on up front, which wasn't much in the way of a sermon or such.
Now, I'm your basic non-believer, but I know enough that if I'm in a religious situation to behave appropriately.
So, is this their "public" face on occasions where there may be outsiders present? And is there something else that goes on "behind the curtain."
'Course, I may have answered my own question. Plus, spellchecker kept trying me to switch LDS for LSD.

[Solly Mack]

98. This thread is pure gold

[MrSlayer]

103. All religions are weird, some are weirder than others.

My own religion seems to indicate that I should be as hedonistic as possible while maintaining a family and a career. My god is harsh.