Atheism for the WIN! YES!!!

[FTM0305]

Why are you a Mormon?

It's not baiting, it's a serious question. I've read your posts in this thread and find them to be logically sound. You correctly turn the notion of "God" away from the definitions expressed in the major religions and toward something more abstract. This leaves me with the question of why you're of the Mormon religion. What makes you a Mormon and not, say, Lutheran?

I'm entirely agnostic. My biggest problem with theists is their zeal to enact public policy that mirrors the beliefs of whichever religion they most closely align. The same can be said of atheists, but they're a worldwide minority with relatively little power. Anyone who claims the contrary is woefully misinformed.

As a Mormon I do have more definite definitions of God, but are not relevant in a mixed culture/religious forum such as this. I wanted to express God in simplest terms as possible and ask ,"what sort evidence a being of these qualities would leave behind?"

As a Mormon I believe

1) God was has a body of flesh and bone, but fundamentally different from our own in the functions of his anatomy, as he is not subject to death. Jesus Christ being the example of this process with his death and literal resurrection.

2) God's primary mission is to bring immortality (freedom from physical death) and eternal life (freedom from spiritual death by teaching man what they must do in order to abide his presence) to man. All other wants are secondary to this.

3) God is both Just and Merciful, will not defy one in support of another with fair trade offs. In relation to this God does not defy laws of nature but follows laws that are inheritant to reality albeit of a higher category.

4) He has knowledge beyond our current understanding.



I whole heartedly agree that it is dangerous to have simplistic minds motivated by some religious notions governing the people through influence of public policy. That is scary to me.

You may be confused as the church's role in Prop 8 in California. A whole thread would be needed to go through the implications that force the church to support a political measure (something that does not happen lightly in the LDS mormon churcg), but suffice it to say the church believed it was a defensive move to protect religious practices of the church, not discriminate.

I personally would rather that "marriage" be struck from all public laws. That it be replaced by a generic civil union. Leaving the word marriage reserved for individuals to excersice their right to express their relationships anyway they choose.

People generally like power and will claim to be anything to get it. I have had atheist friends over the years, conversations are very smooth discussing usually heated topics. And I find that they are people that are honest with themselves, with one exception (someone that was hurt by a religious group and became atheist out of spite than reasoning or belief.) However, I have known ministers in Florida (where I served my mission for my church) to claim atheism and justified becoming a pastor because of pay and that they provided a service to individuals to help them feel good about life.

There are few honest people in the world, that might explain the low number of atheist. Without what I see as bridges between Mormonism and science I would be Atheist, at least agnostic.

Mormon's creation story even states that God did not create the world from nothing, but it took matter that was unorganized and formed it into the world.

I would be the first to say I would not vote for Mitt Romney. I really don't care for him bringing up that he's mormon when he's running for president. Many mormons supported him in the primaries just becuase he was mormon. This is fundamentally wrong (especially since his foreign policy was the same as McCain's) (I was Ron Paul fan).

 

[zsdersw]

Thanks for your reply.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You may be confused as the church's role in Prop 8 in California. A whole thread would be needed to go through the implications that force the church to support a political measure (something that does not happen lightly in the LDS mormon churcg), but suffice it to say the church believed it was a defensive move to protect religious practices of the church, not discriminate.

I don't buy that unless you are saying that the entire Church of Mormon consists of UTTER RETARDS that think you can catch the gay disease and thereby it would threaten the church.

You're going to have to explain to me how monogamous couples being gay should not be able to marry because that would threaten the Church of Mormon.

Actually the only thing that would make sense from what you are hinting at is that all Mormons are gays that want to get married and if they let this legislation through they would all go live their happy gay lifes as happily married couples instead of Mormons...

That's not what you mean, i'm sure, but don't be dishonest enough to just respond to that, just give me a reason, one will be enough, it has to be as logical as something that you'd go into battle for though, unless it is, it's not worth fighting over at all.

 

[FTM0305]

I don't buy that unless you are saying that the entire Church of Mormon consists of UTTER RETARDS that think you can catch the gay disease and thereby it would threaten the church.

You're going to have to explain to me how monogamous couples being gay should not be able to marry because that would threaten the Church of Mormon.

Actually the only thing that would make sense from what you are hinting at is that all Mormons are gays that want to get married and if they let this legislation through they would all go live their happy gay lifes as happily married couples instead of Mormons...

That's not what you mean, i'm sure, but don't be dishonest enough to just respond to that, just give me a reason, one will be enough, it has to be as logical as something that you'd go into battle for though, unless it is, it's not worth fighting over at all.

If you are not from California (which I am born and raised), I'm not going to have this conversation with you. Simply stated you do not know the laws impacted during the course of the political fiasco leading up to prop 8.

In California, same sex couples can already have civil unions, the only difference between this and "marriage" is the word. There are no other benefits. However, because there are laws regarding marriage, this could imply that a same sex couple could potentiality sue the LDS church for not marrying them within a Temple. Now the often retorted comment is this" Why would they even want to be married in a mormon temple?" The reason is that they don't but there is money to be made. Like I said there are not many honest individuals in the world.

Not saying that all same sex couples would do this. Just a few individuals (that might not even be gay) that will try to use the laws to get a pay day. Same sex couples are welcomed to attend church with us, but as part of the tenants of our faith certain requirements are needed for entrance into the temple. A person has to be a member for at least a year before going. Not smoke, drink alcohol, tea, tabacco, etc. there is a code to follow. This is our faith.

Its funny how you accused someone else of baiting me, but its you that has exploded on my comment. Educate yourself on California law and you'll see why the majority of Californians voted to make prop 8 an amendment to the State's constitution.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If you are not from California (which I am born and raised), I'm not going to have this conversation with you. Simply stated you do not know the laws impacted during the course of the political fiasco leading up to prop 8.

Actually, you are assuming that western nation style laws are special in California and you are wrong.

In California, same sex couples can already have civil unions, the only difference between this and "marriage" is the word. There are no other benefits. However, because there are laws regarding marriage, this could imply that a same sex couple could potentiality sue the LDS church for not marrying them within a Temple. Now the often retorted comment is this" Why would they even want to be married in a mormon temple?" The reason is that they don't but there is money to be made. Like I said there are not many honest individuals in the world.

Wow, YOU don't know the difference. The law, which existed before was about civil unions recognised by the state as marriage, the proposition CHANGED THE CURRENT LAW! As of that moment civil unions recognised by state as such were not allowed, you are claiming that i don't know what this is about but YOU don't have the first clue.

Not saying that all same sex couples would do this. Just a few individuals (that might not even be gay) that will try to use the laws to get a pay day. Same sex couples are welcomed to attend church with us, but as part of the tenants of our faith certain requirements are needed for entrance into the temple. A person has to be a member for at least a year before going. Not smoke, drink alcohol, tea, tabacco, etc. there is a code to follow. This is our faith.

Its funny how you accused someone else of baiting me, but its you that has exploded on my comment. Educate yourself on California law and you'll see why the majority of Californians voted to make prop 8 an amendment to the State's constitution.

You really don't have the first clue about your own justice system, do you?

Are you saying that a woman and a man wouldn't do such a thing but a man and a man or a woman and a woman would? THINK, my dear Moronic, i mean Mormonic friend.

You see, i'm all fine with your idiocy as long as you keep it to yourself, when you try to apply religious law, you are no better than the Mullas of Iran.

I really hope you will reconsider this because it makes me want to vomit to hear this shit from a seemingly intelligent human being who is not for a religious theocracy based on his own narrow view.

 

[FTM0305]

Wow, YOU don't know the difference. The law, which existed before was about civil unions recognised by the state as marriage, the proposition CHANGED THE CURRENT LAW! As of that moment civil unions recognised by state as such were not allowed, you are claiming that i don't know what this is about but YOU don't have the first clue.



You really don't have the first clue about your own justice system, do you?

Are you saying that a woman and a man wouldn't do such a thing but a man and a man or a woman and a woman would? THINK, my dear Moronic, i mean Mormonic friend.

You see, i'm all fine with your idiocy as long as you keep it to yourself, when you try to apply religious law, you are no better than the Mullas of Iran.

I really hope you will reconsider this because it makes me want to vomit to hear this shit from a seemingly intelligent human being who is not for a religious theocracy based on his own narrow view.

Wow insulting and wrong at the same time, but since you are not from California I can see how you are confused. Civil unions are still allowed in California, but not same sex marriage. Get the difference? Of course not because you assume that because the laws are "western styled" they are the same as anywhere else.

You are woefully unaware of the politics of California and the laws.

i'll wait here for your apology since you don't seem to understand what is happening. I hope once you are better read on the subject you'll be at least forth coming with an apology in a private message.


The Same sex marriages that were temporarily allowed were not created because of Law, but because a judge (who is gay) sanctioned that the law did not define marrige solely between a man and woman.(even though Civil Unions were already in place). After that california passed a law to define marriage as the union between man and wife. That was later overturned by a judge stating it was against the state's constitution. Prop 8 added the definition of marriage to the state's constitution overturning the judge., but allowing those that were MARRIED not civil unions to stay legally married. Civil unions were never affected.

You should fact check, then apologize to me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Wow insulting and wrong at the same time, but since you are not from California I can see how you are confused. Civil unions are still allowed in California, but not same sex marriage. Get the difference? Of course not because you assume that because the laws are "western styled" they are the same as anywhere else.

You are woefully unaware of the politics of California and the laws.

i'll wait here for your apology since you don't seem to understand what is happening. I hope once you are better read on the subject you'll be at least forth coming with an apology in a private message.


The Same sex marriages that were temporarily allowed were not created because of Law, but because a judge (who is gay) sanctioned that the law did not define marrige solely between a man and woman.(even though Civil Unions were already in place). After that california passed a law to define marriage as the union between man and wife. That was later overturned by a judge stating it was against the state's constitution. Prop 8 added the definition of marriage to the state's constitution overturning the judge., but allowing those that were MARRIED not civil unions to stay legally married. Civil unions were never affected.

You should fact check, then apologize to me.

I should fact check?

You have got to be shitting me?

But just wait, we agree that marriage was allowed before prop8 and that not even civil unions (recognized by the state with the same benefits as a married couple) were allowed after prop8?

The fuck are you arguing about? That's exactly what i said.

 

[jonks]

Many mormons supported him in the primaries just becuase he was mormon. This is fundamentally wrong

Maybe, but maybe they just wanted to try to offset the twenty-plus percent of the country who wouldn't vote for him just because he was a mormon.

 

[FTM0305]

Maybe, but maybe they just wanted to try to offset the twenty-plus percent of the country who wouldn't vote for him just because he was a mormon.

Voting for or not voting for someone because of what religion they claim as their own is wrong.

but of course, popular votes don't really matter.

Am I right?

 

[FTM0305]

I should fact check?

You have got to be shitting me?

But just wait, we agree that marriage was allowed before prop8 and that not even civil unions (recognized by the state with the same benefits as a married couple) were allowed after prop8?

The fuck are you arguing about? That's exactly what i said.

Civil unions are still allowed. I should have put that last "not civil unions" in parenthesis I was stressing the fact you seem to confuse the two.

 

[FTM0305]

PS

I'm not shitting you, that is how silly the whole thing is California is, its all about the WORD marriage. Nothing else.

 

[jonks]

And that is how you create atheists, by insisting that a piece of bread is literally human flesh.

Really? You think someone who was buying whole hog into the 10 plagues, burning bushes, man-swallowing and regurgitating whales, angels, talking snakes, magical fruit, red skinned yellow eyed demonic nemesis, and an invisible omnipresent benevolent father figure who loves us yet simultaneously will send us for eternity to roast in a fiery hell of pain and suffering should we displease him is going to draw the line at a little free cannibalistic food?

 

[jonks]

Voting for or not voting for someone because of what religion they claim as their own is wrong.

but of course, popular votes don't really matter.

Am I right?

which part? I'm not sure I could pull the lever for a satanist. I know, I'm a bigot.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Civil unions are still allowed. I should have put that last "not civil unions" in parenthesis I was stressing the fact you seem to confuse the two.

So you are saying, full state recognised civil unions are allowed, with all federal and state benefits as in a normal marriage?

You are going to have to link me up on this.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

PS

I'm not shitting you, that is how silly the whole thing is California is, its all about the WORD marriage. Nothing else.

Can Mormons get married, what if you couldn't, you could cale it mormon unity or something, but not marriage...

Would that be ok?

Even if it was with you, it's not with me, separate but equal was defeated a long time ago and i don't see a reason to revisit that, it's shameful.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Voting for or not voting for someone because of what religion they claim as their own is wrong.

but of course, popular votes don't really matter.

Am I right?

I completely agree with your first sentence, the first thing is what is said will be done, the second part comes when it is time to re elect.

Doesn't matter in the UK either or demlibs (which is a classical liberal party) would be in the majority.

 

[woolfe9999]

If you are not from California (which I am born and raised), I'm not going to have this conversation with you. Simply stated you do not know the laws impacted during the course of the political fiasco leading up to prop 8.

In California, same sex couples can already have civil unions, the only difference between this and "marriage" is the word. There are no other benefits. However, because there are laws regarding marriage, this could imply that a same sex couple could potentiality sue the LDS church for not marrying them within a Temple. Now the often retorted comment is this" Why would they even want to be married in a mormon temple?" The reason is that they don't but there is money to be made. Like I said there are not many honest individuals in the world.

Not saying that all same sex couples would do this. Just a few individuals (that might not even be gay) that will try to use the laws to get a pay day. Same sex couples are welcomed to attend church with us, but as part of the tenants of our faith certain requirements are needed for entrance into the temple. A person has to be a member for at least a year before going. Not smoke, drink alcohol, tea, tabacco, etc. there is a code to follow. This is our faith.

Its funny how you accused someone else of baiting me, but its you that has exploded on my comment. Educate yourself on California law and you'll see why the majority of Californians voted to make prop 8 an amendment to the State's constitution.

Mormons make up 1.8% of Californians. Why must our social policy serve your religious agenda? And why did Mormons donate to a cause which created bigoted advertisements lying to voters about how allowing gay marriage would result in children being taught sodomy in schools? Those ads were repulsive, demonized homosexuals, and Mormons ought to be ashamed of themselves for funding them.

Here's a thought. If you want laws to protect the religious interests of the LDS church, you can pursue them in Utah where Mormons are 71% of the population. Heck, the state government can formally merge with the LDS church there for all I care. Just quit polluting my state with propaganda and bigotry.

- wolf

 

[jonks]

So you are saying, full state recognised civil unions are allowed, with all federal and state benefits as in a normal marriage?

You are going to have to link me up on this.

there is no federal recognition of civil unions as marriages. you can't file federal taxes as "married" if you are in a civil union.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

there is no federal recognition of civil unions as marriages. you can't file federal taxes as "married" if you are in a civil union.

Well then, that answers the question.

 

[FTM0305]

there is no federal recognition of civil unions as marriages. you can't file federal taxes as "married" if you are in a civil union.

True.

thats a federal matter and has nothing to do with prop 8 anyway.

How and sorry if I messed up google searches. California calls them domestic partnerships, and have been available to same sex couples since 2000 and they have been able to file state taxes jointly since 2007.

Try California Family Code Section 297 (a) for more info.

 

[FTM0305]

Mormons make up 1.8% of Californians. Why must our social policy serve your religious agenda? And why did Mormons donate to a cause which created bigoted advertisements lying to voters about how allowing gay marriage would result in children being taught sodomy in schools? Those ads were repulsive, demonized homosexuals, and Mormons ought to be ashamed of themselves for funding them.

Here's a thought. If you want laws to protect the religious interests of the LDS church, you can pursue them in Utah where Mormons are 71% of the population. Heck, the state government can formally merge with the LDS church there for all I care. Just quit polluting my state with propaganda and bigotry.

- wolf

I like to see one ad that talked about Sodomy at all.

You demonize the church, but keep in mind what groups had the biggest turn out to the polls during the election: Hispanics and Blacks.

And these groups have a very conservative base line when it comes to religion.

How about the few rich supporters of same sex marriage that put far more into the no on prop 8 campaigns than the LDS church did?

Your argument makes no sense and is misinformed.

 

[woolfe9999]

I like to see one ad that talked about Sodomy at all.

You demonize the church, but keep in mind what groups had the biggest turn out to the polls during the election: Hispanics and Blacks.

And these groups have a very conservative base line when it comes to religion.

How about the few rich supporters of same sex marriage that put far more into the no on prop 8 campaigns than the LDS church did?

Your argument makes no sense and is misinformed.

It doesn't matter who voted for it. Obviously Mormons, being as I said, 1.8% of the total population here, didn't pass the measure themselves. The issue is, who funded misleading ads which convinced people to vote for prop 8? Without the money, you wouldn't have had the votes. And those ads preyed off the age old phobia of connecting homosexuality with children. The message was as it always has been with the anti-gay bloc in this country: that homosexuals are trying to worm their way into schools in order prusue their agenda by recruiting our children while they are young and impressionable. It's a sick, bankrupt line of rhetoric that has a long tradition among religious anti-gays. It isn't only the Mormons of course. But they played a major role this time around.

No matter. In the end, you wasted your money. Prop 8 and all the other anti-gay discrimination laws will eventually be thrown out.

- wolf

 

[quikah]

True.

thats a federal matter and has nothing to do with prop 8 anyway.

How and sorry if I messed up google searches. California calls them domestic partnerships, and have been available to same sex couples since 2000 and they have been able to file state taxes jointly since 2007.

Try California Family Code Section 297 (a) for more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_marriage

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It doesn't matter who voted for it. Obviously Mormons, being as I said, 1.8% of the total population here, didn't pass the measure themselves. The issue is, who funded misleading ads which convinced people to vote for prop 8? Without the money, you wouldn't have had the votes. And those ads preyed off the age old phobia of connecting homosexuality with children. The message was as it always has been with the anti-gay bloc in this country: that homosexuals are trying to worm their way into schools in order prusue their agenda by recruiting our children while they are young and impressionable. It's a sick, bankrupt line of rhetoric that has a long tradition among religious anti-gays. It isn't only the Mormons of course. But they played a major role this time around.

No matter. In the end, you wasted your money. Prop 8 and all the other anti-gay discrimination laws will eventually be thrown out.

- wolf

See, i knew there was a reason i liked you, you're a fucking liberal just like all other sane men.