lol... i think you're being difficult on purpose. if i knew you were this way i wouldn't have bothered asking. you could have easily just said "cause this verse says x y z" or whatever if that is your reasoning, instead of giving me the run around. anyway, sorry for asking. clearly it annoys you for whatever reason.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I dunno, man, you seem to be being vague, on purpose, and you're disregarding some key information that would have answered your questions, already.Here, I'll make a list for you that will answer any and all questions for you:
1. I'm agnostic, first and foremost. I don't know if anything related to the the divine is true or not. If asked about religious beliefs, I will always answer, "if x is true, then y would have to be true." You will always get answers in that format because, guess what? I don't know nor will I ever claim to know.
2. I identify as Mormon.
Any questions you ask about my beliefs or supposed beliefs can be directly answered by 1 of those 2 points.
What do you think a Mormon would answer to your question about religious texts? If you don't know, google search what religious texts Mormons use.
Edit - Perhaps you're not very familiar with Christianity and you genuinely do not know the part where Jesus said ,"...other sheep have I not of this fold..."?
http://biblehub.com/john/10-16.htm
Since I identify as Mormon, it should be obvious that the Mormon belief system centers around this very idea/concept...which you asked me about. It is not true if Jesus was just a man and not divine. It was true if Jesus was divine. That should be obvious. You should not have any more questions about that because that's a very obvious answer. "If God is God then God is God." That's the answer I gave you. And you're asking things like, "If God is God, then why do you believe he is God?"
I guess what red g jacks is asking is, whether you think that there were ancient, literate cultures in the Americas that the resurrected Jesus visited.
I suppose he wants to know whether you regard this as a factual description of something that happened, and if so, what you believe happened or whether you think it is metaphorical or unimportant...
Originally posted by red g jacks
lol... i think you're being difficult on purpose.
And yet, I think you are the one that is being difficult: asking questions you should already have the answers to, being vague on purpose, and being antagonistic.
Originally posted by red g jacks
if i knew you were this way i wouldn't have bothered asking.
But, see, I'm used to people like you. You're very common on the internet. 🙂
The best way to deal with people like you is point out where your statements are purposefully stupid, redirect the red herrings back to the topic, and point out the flaws in your arguments. Isn't that what should be done in discussions like these, anyway?
Originally posted by red g jacks
you could have easily just said "cause this verse says x y z"
But, see, that wasn't my answer to your question nor should it have been my answer (but you want it to be my answer so you can revel your smug, misplaced sense of superiority: "AHA! See, he is relying on scriptures for his beliefs! See, he's a dumb person."😉. You brought up another point and I responded to that additional point. You already forgot that or you are purposefully "forgetting" it to redirect the conversation elsewhere.
Observe what you tried to do:
You stated and asked:
Originally posted by red g jacks
alright. so i don't want to debate any of this but i am just curious... do you believe all the stuff about jesus coming to america and whatnot?
To which I replied (obviously, you did want a debate and you used common anti-theistic points: I'm not a newb):
Originally posted by dadudemon
If Jesus was a divine being, it is true. I don't know if it is true. I believe it is impossible to know being agnostic n'stuff.
To which you hilariously replied:
Originally posted by red g jacks
why?
To which I replied (which, at this point, I already knew what you were trying to do so I forced you, if you wanted to continue this conversation, to reveal where you were trying to go with this):
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think you understand what you're asking.What do you mean "why?" Ask your question but ask it much more directly. Don't be afraid: I won't bite.
If your superficial question is taken as is, you're asking, "Why do you think God exists if God exists?"
To which you replied:
Originally posted by red g jacks
no. my question is.... if jesus is a divine being, why do you think that means he came to america?
To which I replied:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I still think you're question is malformed and is unanswerable.If you asked, "If Jesus really was a diving being, why would He not visit all lands, as His sacred text says he did?" Then I would answer, "I agree: He probably would if the mythoi surrounding His character are mostly true."
See, I asked the question you should have been asking because your question made no sense based on the information presented by me in this thread and my previous answer (all of which you read).
The only problem with your approach is I am notorious on KMC for calling out bullshit like that. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
or whatever if that is your reasoning, instead of giving me the run around.
Here's the problem: I never gave you the run-around. You did, however, start with vague questions with sparse words, twice. Your second question, of course, you could have answered on your own with a bit of thinking. "Well, he identifies as agnostic so he doesn't really know it is true. So I guess he thinks, 'if I first assume x is true then y is true' when approaching these topics."
Originally posted by dadudemon
anyway, sorry for asking.
No you're not. Be honest. You were stewing for an argument. Your very first question is a very common question asked by anti-theistic who are being condescending. Bardock42 admitted to it but I already know him and I expect that from him so it was not necessary for him to "fess up."
Originally posted by dadudemon
clearly it annoys you for whatever reason.
Why would I be annoyed by a person who is being needlessly antagonistic, condescending, and combative; when I clearly enjoy arguing with those types? 🙂
For your benefit, I do not believe basing one's beliefs on a sacred text is rational or even tenable. This is why when someone identifies as "agnostic", it makes no sense to start talking about how much their beliefs rely on a "scared text."
Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess what red g jacks is asking is, whether you think that there were ancient, literate cultures in the Americas that the resurrected Jesus visited.
He already stated what his question was after I asked him to clarify and that was not what his question was about: he wanted to know if I believed that Jesus visited the various peoples of the Americas.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose he wants to know whether you regard this as a factual description of something that happened, and if so, what you believe happened or whether you think it is metaphorical or unimportant...
I think it would be logical to conclude that my position would be, when boiled down, "I don't know." Also, I don't think any honest agnostic will ever claim something factual regarding the divine. Really, I don't think almost every last honest person, regardless of their philosophical or religious position, will claim something as factual regarding the divine. As I've stated multiple times in the religion discussion forum here on KMC, the only people that claim objective truth regarding God are those that claim to have directly interacted with God. They may genuinely be honest about that, too. They may not. But as Symmetric Chaos pointed out, they still cannot objectively say that was God because it could just be a super-alien pretending to be God. 🙂
Edit - I should make it clear that every last one of my beliefs start with an "If x is true, then..." Because, fundamentally, I don't know. I can explain the theology and philosophy of some of the beliefs out there but it should be quite obvious that I genuinely do not know. As I have talked to Digi about, in the past, I think everyone is really agnostic...no one can know nor should they pretend to know.
Originally posted by dadudemon
As I have talked to Digi about, in the past, I think everyone is really agnostic...no one can know nor should they pretend to know.
And as I've stated, I think this is a bit silly. Theism/Atheism isn't about "knowing" or even pretending to know. But to act like anything less than that is agnosticism is to muddy the term to the point where it no longer has practical or functional meaning.
i think you are reading a lot more into my question than was actually there. i'm not going to get into a *** for tat argument with you about this. i asked you about the jesus thing because you said something about how religion has been tainted by man and you said you came to mormonism based on your own conception of god so maybe you didn't buy into the entire thing. how would i know? i know catholics who don't literally believe in transubstantiation. i actually know very little about mormonism other than the fact that they were started in the 1800's and believe jesus came to america. you seem hyper-defensive about this whole issue and seem to have assumed a ton of motives for my questions which aren't actually there.
Originally posted by Digi
And as I've stated, I think this is a bit silly.
Well, when I read over your position, after this sentence, I thought your position was silly. You have a strong aversion to being labeled as "agnostic" and I really do not know why because you've admitted that your position could be boiled down to a form of agnosticism and you were logical about it. You like the label "atheist" but as you yourself admitted, pretty much no atheist will take the position of gnostic atheist because, as you say above, that would be silly.
I see no reason why an atheist cannot say, "Well, there's no way to know for sure and I am not foolish enough to think I know for sure no God or gods exist." Sure, that's slapping on an agnostic label to their position by saying stuff like that. But it really is not that big of a deal nor does it diminish their position.
Originally posted by Digi
Theism/Atheism isn't about "knowing" or even pretending to know.
IMO, that's not an accurate portrayal of those two positions. At the center of the theistic or atheistic debate is the question of "knowledge": quite literally and directly, and for thousands of years, this debate has always been about "knowledge" and what it can mean for the individual. The dichotomy you describe falls on a spectrum from gnostic atheism and gnostic theism. My position is, unless either side is omniscient, it is impossible to actually hold a gnostic position. That means everyone is agnostic when their positions are put under philosophical scrutiny.
Also, if someone is omniscient, as I stated before, that creates some logical issues. At the atheistic side, they themselves would be Godlike and, therefore, make their position illogical (how can you not believe in a God or gods and be one, yourself?). Then there is the opposite end which is perfectly sound: "I believe in God or gods because I am a god, myself."
Funny thought: Do you think God sits on His metaphorical throne and says, "Gosh, I'm a gnostic theist."? Prolly not. 🙂
Originally posted by Digi
But to act like anything less than that is agnosticism
I think you don't grasp my position, fully (but you probably do, now, after reading my previous 3 paragraphs). I am not saying "anything less than that is agnosticism." My position is much stronger than that. I think almost all positions are some form of agnostic. Generally, when pressed, most of the people on the theism spectrum will admit, "Well, I really don't know at the end of it." As I am sure you have, you run into those ridiculously devout Christian types who claim gnostic theism. If you can respectfully press the issue enough, you can get them to admit that they are agnostic, in a light form, too. Usually, that debate centers around faith and they sometimes have a lightbulb come on in their head when you approach that topic that way. On another note, I think this is how we can get the aversion to atheists and agnostics reduced in America: making them realize that pretty much everyone falls on a spectrum of agnosticism.
For me, I think it is important that everyone realize that when it comes to religious beliefs (or the lack thereof), "I don't really know" is the most honest approach. Obviously, this applies more to theists than atheists.
I still do not understand your aversion to the label, "agnostic", though, when you yourself admit that there's no way you'd be foolish enough to say you knew for sure no God or gods exist. There's nothing wrong with that label. You can still identify as atheist. They are just labels. I'm pretty sure most halfway educated atheists already know that they are some form of agnostic, anyway.
Originally posted by Digi
..is to muddy the term to the point where it no longer has practical or functional meaning.
This gent explains the same thing, I do:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
He does not view them as "muddied up" terms, either. He seems to agree that, hey, atheists are agnostics, too.
Originally posted by red g jacks
you seem hyper-defensive about this whole issue and seem to have assumed a ton of motives for my questions which aren't actually there.
I figured you would reply with something like this. Based on my previous reply, your only option was to deny.
Your motives and approach were very obvious and your protestations are not improving the situation. But who cares? Just fess up and move on instead of dragging things out. We can agree and talk about politics for hours so, clearly, we are good people. 🙂 So why muddy up the awesome conversations we've had in the past by getting into a *** for tat over this?
But, to directly address where you expressed curiosity in Mormonism: go to an LDS website and look up what they believe.
Here is a great place to start:
http://www.mormon.org/what-do-mormons-believe
I think it is important that people do not get just the pure beliefs about Mormonism and then learn about the history, too. It took decades for Mormonism to evolve their belief system to what it is, today. I would suggest reading about Mormon history, too. Start on Wikipedia and the the LDS history website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#History
http://history.lds.org/?lang=eng
I should note that I've had the benefit of knowing and LDS Historian who specializes in LDS History. You'd be shocked (you probably wouldn't, really) about the strong bias, in the historical community, against Mormons. For instance, one of my college history books said the Mormons were driven out of Missouri because they are reclusive, militaristic, and scared people. I checked the source, found the Historians who wrote that, and took it to this dude. I already knew the REAL reasons (plural) they were driven out but I wanted to know why a published Historian would spread falsehoods like that. Basically, it boils down to people not liking other people and they can't keep their biases out of things. I am positive that this LDS Historian has his own biases, too: he loves the shit out the Sumerians and often overlooks some of the shittier parts of the Sumerians.
Basically, where I was going with all of this is: there are a lot of biases out there against Mormons. Some are former Mormons. Some are people who have latched onto negative thoughts about Mormons for whatever reasons. And some, I think, are just plain bad people. I know lots of the "former Mormons" type of people. Half of them left because they wanted to smoke-weed and drink (but they later come back and say it was because of beliefs or corruption...likely story...). So, be weary of criticisms of Mormons. Be weary of people singing accolades of Mormons. If you have more questions, post about it in the official Mormon thread. If I care and want to help, I'll respond. I have spent 15+ years arguing against anti-Mormons and I identify as an anti-anti-Mormon. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemonno, actually i had a few options. i could take the bait and get into a long winded boring argument over something i don't really care that much about, or i could say what was honestly on my mind. i went with the latter. first i asked you a question which i tried to disarm by saying i wasn't interested in a debate... when you said the question was unclear i tried to clarify.. when you said the question was still unclear it became obvious the disarming didn't work so i started antagonizing you. that wasn't my original intent. you can choose to believe whatever version of events you like, i won't 'fess up' to something i don't think i'm guilty of.
I figured you would reply with something like this. Based on my previous reply, your only option was to deny.Your motives and approach were very obvious and your protestations are not improving the situation. But who cares? Just fess up and move on instead of dragging things out. We can agree and talk about politics for hours so, clearly, we are good people. 🙂 So why muddy up the awesome conversations we've had in the past by getting into a *** for tat over this?[/b]
But, to directly address where you expressed curiosity in Mormonism: go to an LDS website and look up what they believe.here's the thing... i don't actually care that much about mormonism in particular, or else i would have went on google to do research a long time ago. i am curious about what people believe in general and i like to hear their own reasoning for it, if something they believe strikes me as odd or in any way interesting. but i'm not 'anti-mormon' or whatever it is. i have little to no opinion on the religion, beyond the fact that i doubt any version of christianity is actually true and by extension the same applies to mormonism.Here is a great place to start:
http://www.mormon.org/what-do-mormons-believe
I think it is important that people do not get just the pure beliefs about Mormonism and then learn about the history, too. It took decades for Mormonism to evolve their belief system to what it is, today. I would suggest reading about Mormon history, too. Start on Wikipedia and the the LDS history website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#History
http://history.lds.org/?lang=eng
I should note that I've had the benefit of knowing and LDS Historian who specializes in LDS History. You'd be shocked (you probably wouldn't, really) about the strong bias, in the historical community, against Mormons. For instance, one of my college history books said the Mormons were driven out of Missouri because they are reclusive, militaristic, and scared people. I checked the source, found the Historians who wrote that, and took it to this dude. I already knew the REAL reasons (plural) they were driven out but I wanted to know why a published Historian would spread falsehoods like that. Basically, it boils down to people not liking other people and they can't keep their biases out of things. I am positive that this LDS Historian has his own biases, too: he loves the shit out the Sumerians and often overlooks some of the shittier parts of the Sumerians.
Basically, where I was going with all of this is: there are a lot of biases out there against Mormons. Some are former Mormons. Some are people who have latched onto negative thoughts about Mormons for whatever reasons. And some, I think, are just plain bad people. I know lots of the "former Mormons" type of people. Half of them left because they wanted to smoke-weed and drink (but they later come back and say it was because of beliefs or corruption...likely story...). So, be weary of criticisms of Mormons. Be weary of people singing accolades of Mormons. If you have more questions, post about it in the official Mormon thread. If I care and want to help, I'll respond. I have spent 15+ years arguing against anti-Mormons and I identify as an anti-anti-Mormon. 🙂
I think it's a mixing of terms.
Gnosticism has to do with knowing/knowledge.
Theism has to do with belief.
You can be Agnostic ("I don't know if God(s) exist..."😉 and still believe ("...but I believe in God(s)"😉. That's Agnostic Theism. There's also Gnostic ("I know God(s)..."😉 Theism (...and believe in God(s)"😉. Agnostic Atheism (which is essentially my position) is not knowing whether God(s) exist, but not believing they exist as well. And you can reach any of those positions through a myriad of paths and for a myriad of reasons (mine being no evidence that anything supernatural exists. Not only God(s), but demigods, ghosts, fairies, spirits, djinn, etc.). I went from a Gnostic Theist Jehovah's Witness/Baptist/Pentecostal to an Agnostic Atheist because as I became older and more capable of comprehending the Bible and reasoning my positions and values, I found my faith in unproven supernatural phenomenon irrational, as well as finding a lot of events and actions in the Bible immoral and not in line with my personal values (like Jehovah magically summoning two Grizzly Bears to slaughter children they teased Elijah, or his essential wager with Satan and toying with Job's life, among various other examples). Just takes a little objectivity.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I think it's a mixing of terms.Gnosticism has to do with knowing/knowledge.
Theism has to do with belief.
It definitely is mixing of terms and it is mixing them on purpose.
This is why the term (singular) exists, gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. They represent the poles on that spectrum.
I do not want you to think that I am making up terms and coming up with my own philosophies (because it seems like you may have the impression). While it would be awesome if I was actually doing that, they are terms that have existed for quite some time: probably before I was born.
Here is a group dedicated to gnostic atheism:
https://www.facebook.com/gnosticatheism
Here is another site (but the terms' order is swapped):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/distinguishing-the-atheist-agnostic-the-theist-gnostic-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/
Also, my favorite is apatheists. 🙂 They simply don't give a f*ck.
Originally posted by Bardock42either do i... though i don't actually know any mormons. i only thought the idea of jesus coming to america was odd but like i said i haven't researched it at all. just that from what i understand the native americans didn't seem to be christian when we got here.
If it makes you feel better I don't find Mormons any weirder than other Christians...
Originally posted by red g jacks
either do i... though i don't actually know any mormons. i only thought the idea of jesus coming to america was odd but like i said i haven't researched it at all. just that from what i understand the native americans didn't seem to be christian when we got here.
👆
I am not your typical Mormon nor should you get an impression of what Mormons are like from me.
I'm combative, argumentative, arrogant, I will socially drink, I am for gay-marriage (secularly), I think most drugs should be legalized, I have both a perverted and foul mouth, and I'm okay with casual abortion (meaning, non-medical reasons) up to 2-3 months.
Mormons are supposed to be soft-spoken, humble, kind, never drink, oppose gay-marriage because it destroy God's intended plan for families, be against mind-altering drugs (non-medical uses, that is), have clean language, and oppose all non-medical (rape and incest abortions are considered kosher, though) types of abortions.
Originally posted by red g jacks
either do i... though i don't actually know any mormons. i only thought the idea of jesus coming to america was odd but like i said i haven't researched it at all. just that from what i understand the native americans didn't seem to be christian when we got here.
Strange things like that seem to kinda just happen. In the Bible the Israelites seemingly forgot about Moses and Yahweh/Jehovah bringing them out of Egypt and the miracles they'd witnessed firsthand and went right back into creating other idols (Golden Calf) at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses went to get the Commandments.
It could just be that once Jesus left their presence Native Americans looked at each other and were like:
"Meh...
Nature Spirits ftw."
Originally posted by dadudemonyou sound like me. except i am more of an alcoholic than a social drinker. do you disagree with those ideals or just not live up to them?
👆I am not your typical Mormon nor should you get an impression of what Mormons are like from me.
I'm combative, argumentative, arrogant, I will socially drink, I am for gay-marriage (secularly), I think most drugs should be legalized, I have both a perverted and foul mouth, and I'm okay with casual abortion (meaning, non-medical reasons) up to 2-3 months.
Mormons are supposed to be soft-spoken, humble, kind, never drink, oppose gay-marriage because it destroy God's intended plan for families, be against mind-altering drugs (non-medical uses, that is), have clean language, and oppose all non-medical (rape and incest abortions are considered kosher, though) types of abortions.
Originally posted by red g jacks
you sound like me. except i am more of an alcoholic than a social drinker. do you disagree with those ideals or just not live up to them?
The latter: I just do not live up to them. In some ways, I am improving myself as a person. I'm less argumentative than I was even as little as 3 years ago. I am learning how to let arguments go. A person can really become miserable if they try to change people's incorrect ideas or suppositions....because, clearly, most people ignorant and dumb. 🙂
I drink maybe 2 times a year. Probably won't have a drink for 2-3 years, though. 🙂
Originally posted by MF DELPH
It could just be that once Jesus left their presence Native Americans looked at each other and were like:"Meh...
Nature Spirits ftw."
That's actually pretty much what Mormons believe. We believe, based on the Book of Mormon "historical" account that the Native Americans who saw Jesus kept religious beliefs up for about 200 years after Christ visited. Then they slowly devolved into what you described. By around 400 C.E., they started slaughtering the shit out of each other, again.
Originally posted by dadudemonyea they're not bad ideals to strive for.. it's just so easy to go the other way. even easier if you only have one life to live.
The latter: I just do not live up to them. In some ways, I am improving myself as a person. I'm less argumentative than I was even as little as 3 years ago. I am learning how to let arguments go. A person can really become miserable if they try to change people's incorrect ideas or suppositions....because, clearly, most people ignorant and dumb. 🙂I drink maybe 2 times a year. Probably won't have a drink for 2-3 years, though. 🙂
Originally posted by red g jacks
yea they're not bad ideals to strive for.. it's just so easy to go the other way. even easier if you only have one life to live.
One of the reasons I stick with Mormonism (as opposed to just another random religion that I've pulled from a hat) is that it gives the chance for anyone to obtain salvation.
Even an atheist who has argued against Christ his entire life has a chance to "see the light" and get all that God has to offer.
If God is truly omnibenevolent, then this means God would have to have some way of people to start drinking God's koolaid.
But, here is the caveat: you still have to try to be a good person. You can argue against people and religion, as long as you're a good person. That's pretty much the only requirement to go to "heaven" as a Mormon. *
All are saved if they want it. I can deal with silly things like magic underwear as long as the belief system is mostly logically consistent.
*I told Digi that I think Hitchens, if the Mormons are right, has a chance to accept God in the next life and I think Hitchens, if he accepted, is probably arguing with God, right now. 🙂