• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

the false priesthoods in religion and science

laska said:
O.K. assuming Joseph really did have his vision, how could a person find out if it is true then?
Click to expand...

You cannot, which is why claiming it as factual is entirely inane. Why is his subjective vision any more valid than a crackpot's hallucinations in an insane asylum?
 
It could have happened though and you would never know then.
 
laska said:
It could have happened though and you would never know then.
Click to expand...

Yes, lots of things could have. If they can't be proven, though, how do you know? It doesn't make sense to take things like that on faith.
 
You find out by humbly praying and recieving a witness from God.
 
And so it goes......

I can pray humbly for something long enough and it will probably materialize in some form that I, wanting to believe I am receiving it, would deem the answer.
Ex: "Lord, if you would just give me a sign that that dream job I tried so hard for will come, I'll be forever your servant". Three days later, you find a $20 bill on the ground....a sign!!! Praise the lord! Say Halleluja!
Here's a hint that guarantees at least half your prayers will be answered: You WORK at it. No one gets cured by prayer alone. No one gets that career by praying for it.
Those people you listed WORKED for what they achieved. I could list Jewish inventors, Catholic inventors, atheistic inventors, maybe a couple of Druids...
One has nothing to do with the other. Some doctors are very religious, but when you're sick and need them, they don't offer prayers-they work.
 
I know you have to work for it also. I did not mean just ask and it will be given. It requires great study, obedience to moral principles, a lot of sweat. But in the end the only way to know things of God is for God to reveal them to you. It takes both.
 
Fire was not invented by mormons. The wheel was not invented by mormons. Banking was not invented by mormons. Sodomy was not invented by mormons. Some of the greater inventions of real significance have been made seemingly irrelevant of creed, religion, or race. The only distinction you can make is that they have been primarily invented by men, not women. The cause of that can be debated for many days. It's not that easy to make a statement.

True religion and true science are conflict because true science by definition does not exist. Science, that is, in the current sense, and not of 'knowledge'. Science at its purest shape is a refinement of observations, slowly trying to find more and more of reality and understanding it better. It's not a method to acquire the truth.
True religion is also an oxymoron. Religion is seperate from reason, as Kierkegaard showed, and can not be deducted or reduced by reason. Faith and religion are matters that stand above logic, they are beyond reproach. Comparing them with science is silly, because the comparison fails before it is made. You can not compare a square and a cube because they are inheritantly of different nature.

Regarding the "only that which is observable exists" is a difficult statement. Is air observable? Yes it is. We can effectively detect the atoms and molecules that fill the air. We can measure the pressure of the air, and notice its effects in various things we consider normal. Can we observe abstract ideas? This is more difficult, because it pushes the border of observation and of existence. If we say that it is mere electrical activity following observations made, than it is observable. We can see neural activity on our monitor. And if you think of something, and think not of something, we can measure that by the amount of bloodflow to that region of your brain.
If you object, remember that when you see a tree, you are seeing really something whole, that is really just a bunch of molecules reacting with each others. What we see, what we observe is not a true representation of what it is in itself, and so too our observations of neural activity are incomplete.

It can not be lightly stated to be absurd.

Mr U
 
True religion and true science are conflict because true science by definition does not exist. Science, that is, in the current sense, and not of 'knowledge'. Science at its purest shape is a refinement of observations, slowly trying to find more and more of reality and understanding it better. It's not a method to acquire the truth.

That is a good point. True science is a poor phrase on my part. I meant true principles will not be inconsistent with revealed religion. Human wisdom alone cannot determine absolute truths but science is a very useful tool and helps the odds out.


True religion is also an oxymoron. Religion is seperate from reason, as Kierkegaard showed, and can not be deducted or reduced by reason. Faith and religion are matters that stand above logic, they are beyond reproach. Comparing them with science is silly, because the comparison fails before it is made. You can not compare a square and a cube because they are inheritantly of different nature.

I disagree if I understand your post here correctly. Revealed knowledge is truth and it seems to me may or may not be logical from a human perspective but is logical from a deity perspective with a knowledge of all things. The following verses imply that one day in the eternities we can gain a perfect perspective if we follow God:

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. (d&C 88:67)
That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day (D&C 50:24).



Good science and true religion both pursue truth and this is the common bond they share but one relies on limited knowledge and can only speak in plausibility of available evidence whereas the other can speak in absolute truths. I define true religion as all truth and so any truths that science happens to find will be consistent with true, revealed religion.



The LDS methodology of determining truth(it seems to me) is that first we must study it out thoroughly and come up with a conclusion (the scientific method), and then ask God for a witness on whether or not our conclusions are true.
 
The only matching field between science and theology I see, and it's not really one, is theology. Are you saying that theology is this true religion. And if so, can you name any prominent mormon scholars who have radically realligned how we think of theology/god/et etcetera?

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.
Click to expand...

Than I am glad that I am blind to him, because I love everything that is part of me. Including my darkness.

Mr U
 
laska said:
True religion and true science are conflict because true science by definition does not exist. Science, that is, in the current sense, and not of 'knowledge'. Science at its purest shape is a refinement of observations, slowly trying to find more and more of reality and understanding it better. It's not a method to acquire the truth.

That is a good point. True science is a poor phrase on my part. I meant true principles will not be inconsistent with revealed religion. Human wisdom alone cannot determine absolute truths but science is a very useful tool and helps the odds out.


True religion is also an oxymoron. Religion is seperate from reason, as Kierkegaard showed, and can not be deducted or reduced by reason. Faith and religion are matters that stand above logic, they are beyond reproach. Comparing them with science is silly, because the comparison fails before it is made. You can not compare a square and a cube because they are inheritantly of different nature.

I disagree if I understand your post here correctly. Revealed knowledge is truth and it seems to me may or may not be logical from a human perspective but is logical from a deity perspective with a knowledge of all things. The following verses imply that one day in the eternities we can gain a perfect perspective if we follow God:

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. (d&C 88:67)
That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day (D&C 50:24).



Good science and true religion both pursue truth and this is the common bond they share but one relies on limited knowledge and can only speak in plausibility of available evidence whereas the other can speak in absolute truths. I define true religion as all truth and so any truths that science happens to find will be consistent with true, revealed religion.



The LDS methodology of determining truth(it seems to me) is that first we must study it out thoroughly and come up with a conclusion (the scientific method), and then ask God for a witness on whether or not our conclusions are true.
Click to expand...

I'm still wondering how something that doesn't really exist, whose only existance is in the minds of men, is going to accomplish this...you can't ask something that has not been proven to provide another proof.
 
The only matching field between science and religion I see, and it's not really one, is theology. Are you saying that theology is this true religion.

The LDS scriptures define truth as "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24). This encompasses all truth, whether moral principles that effect human salvation as taught in the scriptures or understanding the heavens and the earth.(Not sure if I understood your question so I hope this helps.)

And if so, can you name any prominent mormon scholars who have radically realligned how we think of theology/god/et etcetera?

We believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in the same tradition as Abraham and Moses, and he did reveal(or restored) new things on the nature of God and theology that had been lost to mankind. Joseph gave the world new scriptures, not since Mohammed has this been done(Joseph's scriptures though are in the same tradition as the Hebrew prophets and we believe he was a direct descendant of the Biblical Joseph.). You may find the Book of Mormon interesting as it gives credible answers imo to the great questions that have troubled the philosophers. While they argued about the nature of God, Joseph had the faith to open the heavens and see for himself the nature of God.
 
I'm still wondering how something that doesn't really exist, whose only existance is in the minds of men, is going to accomplish this...you can't ask something that has not been proven to provide another proof.

I have had a few sacred experiences where I know that God exists.
 
laska said:
I'm still wondering how something that doesn't really exist, whose only existance is in the minds of men, is going to accomplish this...you can't ask something that has not been proven to provide another proof.

I have had a few sacred experiences where I know that God exists.
Click to expand...

What about the fact that your "religious experiences" can easily be understood in the context of Evolutionary advantages and neurochemistry?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml
 
laska said:
I'm still wondering how something that doesn't really exist, whose only existance is in the minds of men, is going to accomplish this...you can't ask something that has not been proven to provide another proof.

I have had a few sacred experiences where I know that God exists.
Click to expand...

You 'believe' that he exists. Experiences are not proof. Based on perception, anyone can make the statement God exists-it's a personal belief only. Based on perception, the word 'sacred' is a personal observation. What you may think of as a 'sacred experience' to another is just the culmination of fortuitous events.
When my kids were little, 'Santa Claus' left gifts and put sooty handprints on the wall-his reindeer didn't finish the carrots left outside. They believed he existed...due to the events.
Everyone has some belief system, even those who claim not to. Bottom line is, things happen, good and bad, the best of which sometimes we were working for all along. Instead of passing off credit to some unseen entity, take it yourself knowing you did right.
 
laska said:


We believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in the same tradition as Abraham and Moses, and he did reveal(or restored) new things on the nature of God and theology that had been lost to mankind. Joseph gave the world new scriptures, not since Mohammed has this been done(Joseph's scriptures though are in the same tradition as the Hebrew prophets and we believe he was a direct descendant of the Biblical Joseph.). You may find the Book of Mormon interesting as it gives credible answers imo to the great questions that have troubled the philosophers. While they argued about the nature of God, Joseph had the faith to open the heavens and see for himself the nature of God.
Click to expand...


Out of Curiosity....was this man...also a prophet?

"Jehovah's Witness History

The Jehovah's Witnesses was begun by Charles Taze Russell in 1872. He was born on February 16, 1852, the son of Joseph L. and Anna Eliza Russell. He had great difficulty in dealing with the doctrine of eternal hell fire and in his studies came to deny not only eternal punishment, but also the Trinity, and the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. When Russell was 18, he organized a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1879 he sought to popularize his aberrant ideas on doctrine. He co-published The Herald of the Morning magazine with its founder, N. H. Barbour and by 1884 Russell controlled the publication and renamed it The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (now known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). The first edition of The Watchtower magazine was only 6,000 copies each month. Today the Witnesses' publishing complex in Brooklyn, New York, churns out 100,000 books and 800,000 copies of its two magazines--daily!
Russell claimed that the Bible could be only understood according to his interpretations. A dangerous arrangement since he controlled what was written in the Watchtower magazine. This kind of assertion is typical among leaders of cult religions.
After the death of Russell on Oct. 31, 1916, a Missouri lawyer named Joseph Franklin Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watch Tower Society which was known then as the International Bible Students Association. In 1931 he changed the name of the organization to "The Jehovah's Witnesses."
After Rutherford's death, Nathan Knorr took over. After Knorr, Frederick William Franz became president.
The Society was led by Mr. Henschel who died in 2003. The group has over 4 million members world wide. The Watchtower Society statistics indicate that 740 house calls are required to recruit each of the nearly 200,000 new members who join every year.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have several ‘book studies' each week. The members are not required to attend, but there is a level of expectation that gently urges converts to participate. It is during these ‘book studies' that the Jehovah's Witness is constantly exposed to counter Christian teachings. The average Jehovah's Witness, with his constant Watchtower indoctrination, could easily pummel the average Christian when it comes to defending his beliefs.
The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently portray the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan in origin and that Christendom, as a whole, has bought the lie of the devil. Along with denying the Trinity is an equally strong denial of the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the belief in hell, and eternal conscious punishment in hell. "

And, If Not.....WHY?
 
tecoyah said:
Out of Curiosity....was this man...also a prophet?

"Jehovah's Witness History

The Jehovah's Witnesses was begun by Charles Taze Russell in 1872. He was born on February 16, 1852, the son of Joseph L. and Anna Eliza Russell. He had great difficulty in dealing with the doctrine of eternal hell fire and in his studies came to deny not only eternal punishment, but also the Trinity, and the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. When Russell was 18, he organized a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1879 he sought to popularize his aberrant ideas on doctrine. He co-published The Herald of the Morning magazine with its founder, N. H. Barbour and by 1884 Russell controlled the publication and renamed it The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (now known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). The first edition of The Watchtower magazine was only 6,000 copies each month. Today the Witnesses' publishing complex in Brooklyn, New York, churns out 100,000 books and 800,000 copies of its two magazines--daily!
Russell claimed that the Bible could be only understood according to his interpretations. A dangerous arrangement since he controlled what was written in the Watchtower magazine. This kind of assertion is typical among leaders of cult religions.
After the death of Russell on Oct. 31, 1916, a Missouri lawyer named Joseph Franklin Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watch Tower Society which was known then as the International Bible Students Association. In 1931 he changed the name of the organization to "The Jehovah's Witnesses."
After Rutherford's death, Nathan Knorr took over. After Knorr, Frederick William Franz became president.
The Society was led by Mr. Henschel who died in 2003. The group has over 4 million members world wide. The Watchtower Society statistics indicate that 740 house calls are required to recruit each of the nearly 200,000 new members who join every year.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have several ‘book studies' each week. The members are not required to attend, but there is a level of expectation that gently urges converts to participate. It is during these ‘book studies' that the Jehovah's Witness is constantly exposed to counter Christian teachings. The average Jehovah's Witness, with his constant Watchtower indoctrination, could easily pummel the average Christian when it comes to defending his beliefs.
The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently portray the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan in origin and that Christendom, as a whole, has bought the lie of the devil. Along with denying the Trinity is an equally strong denial of the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the belief in hell, and eternal conscious punishment in hell. "

And, If Not.....WHY?
Click to expand...

Jehovah's witnesses are clearly a cult. There was something on TV about how they think anything outside the church, and do I mean anything, is Satan's world. They think you and I are Satan. This site is Satan. Music is Satan. Any holiday is Satan. Television is Satan, and just about everything else is Satan.
 
One of the dearest people in my life is an 'elder'(not sure what they call them) in JW. We have had a few arguments over the years but we have ceased and agree to disagree.
They believe that pre-chosen ones will enter 'paradise'(they deem it different than 'heaven') and that whatever 'good' they do will not get them there-their good deeds are done for the 'church' and community. They do think any celebration of holidays, birthdays, etc., are devil's work (although he's never sent back a Christmas gift :mrgreen:)
Some hypocritical points personally observed through my friend: Smoking and drinking are forbidden-he smoked and drank-one time driving through his town, cigarette dangling, he passed two women from his hall and ducked so they wouldn't see the cig. He also tried to hide them from his wife, claiming even once that a cig in his hand in a pic was mine.
He was told by his hall members that his car-a PT Cruiser-was too ostentatious. So he sold it and got a Silverado truck-that was ok.
He has been scheduled to speak at seminars, but will just as likely cancel out because he 'doesn't feel like it'.
He parties. He insisted on coming to another friend's birthday celebration-declining an invitation to dinner to be there.
These 'religions', to me at least, are nothing more than some person's play for power. Some good might come, as in helping the community, etc., but all they seem to be is a set of rules with some outlandish promise of self betterment and great reward. Just depends on what 'prophet' it setting the rules. What's sad to me is that otherwise intelligent people fall for it, even if they decide to 'break a few rules'.
 
laska said:
If you prayed and Christ visited you. Would this be evidence to you that He exists? How do you reproduce it for others? You would then know a truth that cannot be proven unless God decides to confirm your testimony to others by revealing to them it is true.
Click to expand...
You are showing an astonishing ignorance of the steps of the Scientific Method. What you describe can not in any way be seen as science or scientific evidence.
 
tecoyah said:
Out of Curiosity....was this man...also a prophet?

"Jehovah's Witness History

The Jehovah's Witnesses was begun by Charles Taze Russell in 1872. He was born on February 16, 1852, the son of Joseph L. and Anna Eliza Russell. He had great difficulty in dealing with the doctrine of eternal hell fire and in his studies came to deny not only eternal punishment, but also the Trinity, and the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. When Russell was 18, he organized a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1879 he sought to popularize his aberrant ideas on doctrine. He co-published The Herald of the Morning magazine with its founder, N. H. Barbour and by 1884 Russell controlled the publication and renamed it The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (now known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). The first edition of The Watchtower magazine was only 6,000 copies each month. Today the Witnesses' publishing complex in Brooklyn, New York, churns out 100,000 books and 800,000 copies of its two magazines--daily!
Russell claimed that the Bible could be only understood according to his interpretations. A dangerous arrangement since he controlled what was written in the Watchtower magazine. This kind of assertion is typical among leaders of cult religions.
After the death of Russell on Oct. 31, 1916, a Missouri lawyer named Joseph Franklin Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watch Tower Society which was known then as the International Bible Students Association. In 1931 he changed the name of the organization to "The Jehovah's Witnesses."
After Rutherford's death, Nathan Knorr took over. After Knorr, Frederick William Franz became president.
The Society was led by Mr. Henschel who died in 2003. The group has over 4 million members world wide. The Watchtower Society statistics indicate that 740 house calls are required to recruit each of the nearly 200,000 new members who join every year.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have several ‘book studies' each week. The members are not required to attend, but there is a level of expectation that gently urges converts to participate. It is during these ‘book studies' that the Jehovah's Witness is constantly exposed to counter Christian teachings. The average Jehovah's Witness, with his constant Watchtower indoctrination, could easily pummel the average Christian when it comes to defending his beliefs.
The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently portray the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan in origin and that Christendom, as a whole, has bought the lie of the devil. Along with denying the Trinity is an equally strong denial of the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the belief in hell, and eternal conscious punishment in hell. "

And, If Not.....WHY?
Click to expand...


I am not doing a good job explaining one of my main points in this thread.
It is my belief a true and living religion is started and directed by God. The true prophets are called by God and are God's spokesperson on the earth. The scriptures illustrate that Moses did not wake up one day and decide to be a prophet. God chose him and not the other way around. Moses spoke the will of God, not his own will, or what he thought God would say. This is a big difference from someone waking up one day and calling themselves to be God's spokesperson and using their own logic to interpret scriptures and teach. One is recieving light from the heavens, and the other is just trying to interpret the writings from dead prophets. T

The Sermon on the Mount teaches how to find out a true prophet from a false one. A person should put Joseph or any religious leader to the test. First, do they claim to be interpreting and using their own logic or do they claim to have the authority and inspiration of God. Since mankind cannot determine absolute truth and cannot give themselves God's authority, those religious leaders who honestly state they are giving their own "interpretations" of scriptures and maybe just felt the need to do this work, then these obviously are not prophets who have the authority and inspiration to speak in absolute truths. Earlier in this thread I pasted a link to Joseph Smith's testimony. Joseph falls in the Moses category as far as claims go. I believe this means we should continue to test to see if Joseph really was a prophet. The Sermon on the Mount teaches to discern between a true or false prophet that we should analyze the fruits. A good tree produces good fruits, a bad tree produces corrupt fruit. Joseph left new scriptures the size of the Torah and New Testament combined. That is a lot of evidence to sift through. Is the fruit good here, are the moral teachings virtuous. What about the followers of these teachings. What are their fruits. I think you must study the most faithful members on a whole, maybe the ones who have been married in the temples, active, and have callings in the church. If the tree is corrupt, the most faithful to these corrupt teachings should produce bad fruits. You can study the missionaries, what are their fruits. A person can also test the moral principles themselves out by living them and see what kind of fruits they produce. The final and most crucial step is to pray and get personal revelation from God if it is true.

There have been two peoples known in secular history who have produced prophets and scriptures in the Hebrew prphetic tradition, the Israelites and the Mormons. Both peoples escaped persecution by a prophet leading them on an exodus across a wilderness to a promise land. Both settled by the two largest inland lakes of salt in the world(the Lord calls his people the salt of the earth), both made the deserts bloom, both built a great temple. Joseph was persecuted greatly by many of the religious leaders of his day and sealed his testimony with his blood. Today, there are twelve million members world wide over half of which is outside the United States, sixty thousand full time missionaries (mostly young men and women serving for 2 years at their own expense), over 100 temples worldwide. It is one of the fastest growing churches in the world(maybe the fastest) and population experts are stating that within the next hundred years it will be one of the great world religions as far as numbers. None of this means it is true but it is enough that it should be investigated seriously imo.
 
steen said:
You are showing an astonishing ignorance of the steps of the Scientific Method. What you describe can not in any way be seen as science or scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

I wasn't writing about the scientific method in the quote that you used.
 
laska said:
None of this means it is true but it is enough that it should be investigated seriously imo.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%....and find the Book of Mormon to be an excellent read. I also have yet to meet a follower I did not like, or who was brash and pushy. Of all the Soapbox religions I find this one to be the most genuine, as far as the followers go. That said.....Any religion which claims to be the word of God....automatically has one strike against it in my mind, As anything making exraordinary claims...better have extrordinary proofs.
 
laska said:
I wasn't writing about the scientific method in the quote that you used.
Click to expand...
You are writing a tread about science.

perhaps, if you had left science out of it, you wouldn't be called on the inaccuracies, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom