Religion / Theology

Topics related to theology.
Cool Breeze
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by Cool Breeze »

Tom Mazanec wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:44 am
Cool Breeze wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:58 pm
Tom Mazanec wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:13 pm
The US Constitution is a masterpiece. For the 1700s it is a marvel.
But it is not Divine. No document which gives African Americans three fifths of a human soul can be Divine.
I'm not calling it divine, it clearly isn't, but it doesn't ever mention anything about a soul.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/three- ... compromise
To put it more bluntly, any document supporting slavery for African Americans (brought here against their will) ain't divine.
Yes, they weren't considered persons (worthy of a vote like a native/englishman/etc). It's not that uncommon in the context of history. The slavery issue (bringing it up, old news) is just another manifestation of moderns thinking they are somehow good people, which they aren't.

Navigator
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by Navigator »

Here is the exact quote from modern prophecy related to the constitution

Doctrine and Covenants, section 101, verse 80

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng

John
Posts: 11126
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Faith and Choice

Post by John »

** 26-Jan-2022 World View: Theology and Logic
Cool Breeze wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:40 pm
> I agree with Navi here and that's why I like him. Notice, he is
> not offended when others choose to do something else, or say
> something - I applaud that.
You've never shown much grasp of logic, so it's not surprising that
you think that it's ok to post bigoted remarks about the people you
hate, including Jews, blacks, Indios, Mormons, Muslims, simply because
you found one person, Navi, who says that he's not offended. The fact
that you've found one person who claims not to be offended does not
give you the right to post bigoted remarks that would offend many
other people besides that one person.

This is a public forum in a public web site read by thousands of
people every day. Maybe you found one person who is not offended, but
there are thousands of others who might be offended by your bigoted
remarks. I gave an example, which you ignored, that someone who hates
Jews may read one of your remarks on this forum, and use it to justify
violence against Jews, and you wouldn't even be aware of it.

This is not acceptable to me.

You appear more and more to be a Russian troll, and an Orthodox
Christian religious fanatic, whose job is to bypass logic and spread
misinformation and bias. I don't care if you insult me, because I
know you're completely full of crap, but it's not acceptable for you
to use this forum as a launch platform to insult and offend other
people.

In the past I compared you to Bob Butler because both of you are
racist, anti-Semitic, bigoted and offensive fanatics. He uses the
trope of "tribal thinking," while you use your religious fanaticism
about Orthodox Christianity. But the results are the same.

You wrote another post accusing me of "willful ignorance." I'm going
to spend more time answering that, because I enjoy the logic of
theology, and this is a theology thread. So I'll have to spend time
writing a response. Since you're a troll and a religious fanatic, and
you have no grasp of logic, you obviously have no idea that you
completely contradicted yourself in that post.

By the way, are you aware that when I was a grad student at MIT, I
specialized in Mathematical Logic? I like to point out that
Mathematical Logic has real world applications (one of them being
software development). What I mean is that calculus and abstract
function theory are abstract branches of mathematics, and they have
probability analysis and physics as real world applications. Well,
Mathematic Logic is another abstract branch of mathematics, with real
world applications in philosophy and theology.

Another application is Generational Dynamics theory, which is heavily
dependent on Mathematical Logic. And one reason you may be having so
much trouble in this forum is because you're a religious fanatic and
you have no grasp of logic. The same is true of theology, which is
also heavily dependent on logic, which is why I've always been so
interested in it.

Your behavior in this forum has been unacceptable. I haven't banned
you because I don't like to do that. Even so, you've repeatedly taken
advantage of my good nature, and there are other tools I could use,
and I will if you keep acting like a jackass.

User avatar
Tom Mazanec
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:13 pm

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by Tom Mazanec »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:01 am
Tom Mazanec wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:44 am
Cool Breeze wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:58 pm


I'm not calling it divine, it clearly isn't, but it doesn't ever mention anything about a soul.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/three- ... compromise
To put it more bluntly, any document supporting slavery for African Americans (brought here against their will) ain't divine.
Yes, they weren't considered persons (worthy of a vote like a native/englishman/etc). It's not that uncommon in the context of history. The slavery issue (bringing it up, old news) is just another manifestation of moderns thinking they are somehow good people, which they aren't.
Modern people are not much (if any) better than the Founders. I would argue they are worse, allowing abortion on demand of the mother.
SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by Cool Breeze »

Tom Mazanec wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:56 am
Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:01 am
Tom Mazanec wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:44 am

https://www.britannica.com/topic/three- ... compromise
To put it more bluntly, any document supporting slavery for African Americans (brought here against their will) ain't divine.
Yes, they weren't considered persons (worthy of a vote like a native/englishman/etc). It's not that uncommon in the context of history. The slavery issue (bringing it up, old news) is just another manifestation of moderns thinking they are somehow good people, which they aren't.
Modern people are not much (if any) better than the Founders. I would argue they are worse, allowing abortion on demand of the mother.
I agree, they are worse, in fact much worse if I had to classify. Quality is low now due to so many people being born and welfare/dysgenics. And I'm not a guy who worries about population or "too many people." I worry about how obviously stupid the mass man has become due to largesse and government payoffs, and abuse.

John
Posts: 11126
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by John »

** 30-Jan-2022 World View: Religion and Science and Theology
Cool Breeze wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:20 pm
> I shouldn't have to bother with this level of willful ignorance,
> but since he asked I will. The concept of God is that He is beyond
> existence. Forensic science does not apply to Him in a way that it
> constricts Him, His plan, or His providence. As such (and don't
> get mad at me for the literal definition of God), a Virgin Birth
> cannot possibly contradict "genetic science" anymore than science
> can explain the coming into being (origin) of real creatures,
> especially sentient ones (it can't). The issue at hand was that if
> the claim is that the native americans are from the Middle East
> originally, of course they should have middle eastern DNA, or we
> should doubt their position (they aren't God, no claims were made
> regarding something supernatural, etc). This is basic logic that
> someone who is smart should never ignore and it is embarrassing.

> Regarding walking on water over having power or created things,
> this is also the definition of God - so go complain about that one
> again to someone else if you don't like it. Again, God created the
> universe, then you ask about someone's "rights"? More estrogen
> coming out here, total nonsense.
This argument is extremely emotional and passionate, but from the
point of view of theology, it is logically contradictory.

You say, "Forensic science does not apply to [God] in a way that it
constricts Him, His plan, or His providence." In other words, God is
omnipotent (can do anything), and therefore can violate genetic
science bring forth a Virgin birth.

Similarly, Jesus can walk on water or change water to wine because an
omnipotent God can violate the molecular laws of physics and chemistry
at will.

So you say that science cannot constrict God in any way, but then you
go on to imply that Mormonism is invalid because it violates the same
genetic science -- native Americans have the wrong DNA. Obviously, if
God is Omnipotent -- can do anything including violating forensic
science and genetic science and molecular science -- then God could
have arranged for native Americans to have non-Middle Eastern DNA.

In fact, I'll make this stronger and state it as a basic principle of
theology -- you cannot ever use science to invalidate any religion
that has an omnipotent god, because omnipotence overrides science.

I'm not the only person to tell you this. Navigator wrote the
following:
> "Matters of faith are just that. A matter of
> faith. Not of "scientific proof". Science is constantly finding
> "new" answers and rejecting old theorems. God is never going to
> "prove" himself to man, because one of the main things we are
> tested on in this life is whether or not we will chose to exercise
> faith in God or not."
> viewtopic.php?p=67882&sid=6aa8b29b4d159 ... 3ea#p67882
And spottybrowncow wrote this:
> "This thread is not about science and proof and
> reaching an objective universal reality for all, wherein you can
> say, "See, I told you man, 2+2=4, just look!" Every true religious
> believer has made his or her own Kierkegaardian "leap of faith,"
> for his or her own personal reasons. Therefore, no one's belief
> can be objectively proven or disproven."
> viewtopic.php?p=67816#p67816
So those are three of us saying the same thing to you -- you can't use
science to invalidate a religion. When someone does try something
like this, it's always a political evaluation, not scientific and not
theological. It reminds me of the current situation where mask and
vaccine mandates are highly contentious, and each side claims to be
representing science, when it's mostly politics.

If we look back through millennia of history, civilizations rise and
fall, and religions come and go, although religions have the ability
to survive even when their founding civilizations are destroyed.
People in all religions perpetrate genocide, ethnic cleansing,
torture, rape, and massacres. It's part of the human DNA. In all the
books and articles that I've written, all religions behave the same
way. If there were any significant differences, then I would have
noticed them and civilization historians like Arnold Toynbee would
have noticed and remarked about them.

Then there's this:
Cool Breeze wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:38 am
> Should we not point out that Muhammad is not a good example to
> live by (the opposite of the claim of islam), if you examine his
> life?
Now, I spent many months researching the history of Islam and the life
of Mohammed for my book on Iran, and Mohammed had flaws, but so does
everyone, and I have no idea why he's being singled out.

Mohammed was an extremely charismatic rebel leader, living through a
generational Crisis era, leading a clan at war with another clan,
winning the war, and launching a major religion. In the end, he was
kind to his defeated enemies. What's wrong with that?

Jesus was an extremely charismatic rebel leader, living through a
generational Awakening era. He was not a war leader, since there was
no war to lead, but he did say, "I did not come to bring peace, but a
sword" (Matthew 10:34). And he was kind to his enemies.

Or maybe you think Putin is a good example to live by -- a murderous
KGB operative, and then leading an ethnic cleansing war against the
people in the Caucasus.

I think that most people have attributes that are good to live by, and
other attributes that one should avoid.

John Xenakis is author of: "World View: Iran's Struggle for Supremacy
-- Tehran's Obsession to Redraw the Map of the Middle East"
(Generational Theory Book Series, Book 1) Paperback: 153 pages, over
100 source references, $7.00
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... s.irbk.htm
https://www.amazon.com/World-View-Supre ... 732738610/

John
Posts: 11126
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by John »

** 30-Jan-2022 World View: Religious Conversions

Continuing from the previous post, I'd like to address the question
of why we should even bother to compare one religion to another.

Of course, it's an interesting intellectual exercise. There are
probably a million books writing on theology over the centuries,
and numerous colleges have a theology department or theology major.

But why would anyone say, "My religion is better than your religions"?

One reason is that some people use it start a war. ("Kill the
infidels!")

Another purpose would be to try to convert someone. For the last few
days, I've been trying to think of situations where I was personally
aware of someone converting from one religion to another because the
other religion was somehow "better."

People do not select religions on the basis of which one is "best."
Almost universally, a person's religion is selected for him by his
parents and his society, and he stays with the religion for the rest
of his life.

I'm aware of a few conversions for the sake of marriage. The most
famous one that I'm aware of is when Britain's prime minister
Tony Blair stepped down, and he announced that it "felt right"
to convert from his Anglican religion to the Catholic religion
of his wife Cherie.

There are other reasons for conversion. I'm told that in the past a
Catholic evangelist might pay someone in a foreign land $5 to convert
to become a Catholic. There are also cases when someone is forced to
convert while staring down the barrel of a gun. But these are not
cases where a conversion takes place because one religion is "better"
than another.

I have a personal anecdote related to this subject. This is a story
that my mother told me. Her mother, my grandmother, used to take the
family every Sunday to a Catholic church. I'm not sure why -- perhaps
there was no nearby Greek Orthodox Church. So one day, according to
my mother, the Catholic priest took my grandmother aside and said,
"You've been so kind and generous to us over the years. Why don't you
convert and become a Catholic?" My grandmother was furious and said,
"If I did that, I would be no good to either of us." And my
grandmother never returned to that church again.

To me, this story makes the point that a religion goes well beyond
theology. A religion defines a community, a culture, and converting
from one religion to another would be a betrayal of the entire
community of one's birth. So if you criticize a religion, then you're
criticizing the way of life of a lot of people.

John
Posts: 11126
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by John »

** 30-Jan-2022 World View: A Religion of Peace

Some years ago, when I was writing about how the Buddhists in Myanmar
(Burma) were perpetrating torture, slaughter, torture, rapes, genocide
and ethnic cleansing of Muslim Rohingyas, I was getting angry comments
that went along the following lines:
> "Buddhists would never hurt anyone, and Muslims are
> usually the murderers. If the Buddhists are killing Muslims, then
> it must be the fault of the Muslims. Muslims claim that Islam is
> a "Religion of Peace." Do you claim that Islam is a Religion of
> Peace?"
There is one troll who asked the last question repeatedly and angrily
each time I wrote about the subject.

So I pointed out how the Buddhists had committed genocide in Cambodia,
and I answered as follows:
> "No, I do not think that Islam is a Religion of Peace.
> There is no such thing as a Religion of Peace. Because if some
> religion tried to be a religion of peace, then its people would be
> exterminated in the next generational crisis war by the people of
> some other religion that wasn't trying to be a religion of
> peace."
The troll said that he thought that this response was a joke, so I had
to keep repeating this response for him.

What I found amazing at the time, and wrote about frequently, was that
there were three genocides going on in three different countries, all
targeting Sunni Muslims, and nobody seemed to care: the Shia/Alawites
led by Bashar al-Assad and the Russians against the Arab Sunnis in
Syria, the Buddhist Burmese army against the Rohingyas in Myanmar, and
the Chinese Communists against the Uighurs in China.

In the last few years, the Turks have changed the Syrian genocide into
a static conflict in Idlib province, and the Burmese genocide has
changed, with the Buddhist army now targeting Buddhist ethnic groups
rather than Rohingyas, making it more a Buddhist on Buddhist genocide
like the one in Cambodia.

But the Chinese Communist genocide, slaughter, rape, torture and
enslavement of the Muslim Uighurs continues unabated, and there is
little notice in the international community, even, remarkably, from
the Uighurs' Turkic and Muslim brothers in Central Asia, in Turkey,
and on the Arabian peninsula. However, there's been increased
attention recently because of the Beijing Olympics, though that may
disappear when the games end.

For those of you reading this who think that you may know everthing
about religion, you should spend a few minutes watching the following
video about Zen Koans, suggested by a web site reader:

*** What Zen Buddhist riddles (Zen Koans) reveal about knowledge and the unknowable
https://aeon.co/videos/what-zen-buddhis ... unknowable

For further guidance on the folly of certainty, I'll repeat the
following from King Solomon in Ecclesiastes:
> "1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall
> be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there
> is no new thing under the sun. 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it
> may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time,
> which was before us. 1:11 There is no remembrance of former
> things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are
> to come with those that shall come after."
** 27-Aug-18 World View -- Genocide of Rohingyas in Burma (Myanmar) appears to be almost complete
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e180827



** 12-Feb-16 World View -- US and Russia agree to a farcical 'cessation of hostilities' in Syria
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e160212

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by Cool Breeze »

John wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:33 pm
So you say that science cannot constrict God in any way, but then you
go on to imply that Mormonism is invalid because it violates the same
genetic science -- native Americans have the wrong DNA. Obviously, if
God is Omnipotent -- can do anything including violating forensic
science and genetic science and molecular science -- then God could
have arranged for native Americans to have non-Middle Eastern DNA.
No, your logic is poor - you suggest that God can deceive others via the physical world - far different than being on a different plane and having POWER over the realms of reality. You excuse deception for doing "whatever you want" which is not what God does, or has ever done. This is clear to an honest, logical thinker, and you failed here again in this situation of application.
Now, I spent many months researching the history of Islam and the life
of Mohammed for my book on Iran, and Mohammed had flaws, but so does
everyone, and I have no idea why he's being singled out.
Silly relativism. Either he's a good example to follow (compared to others) or he's not. He's not, period. He's the antithesis of someone like Christ, literally, and it's ridiculous to not understand this or point it out. That you don't believe anything is different religiously, or real, is irrelevant to the facts at hand and what people teach regarding religions. Your relativism doesn't change Mo having harems, killling people, or telling others he's the real messenger, which is false and can't exist on any plane when others claim things that are diametrically opposed.
I think that most people have attributes that are good to live by, and
other attributes that one should avoid.
This is a true statement, and totally betrays your argument. You don't see that? This is precisely the point of "religion" or "truth" or what people seek to be truly human. Some religions teach that bad attributes are actually ok (Islam, since its founder did many of these bad things) and acceptable. Others don't. Don't bother responding unless you can actually counter this point, which is the point of our discussion here. You are schizophrenic on this issue.

John
Posts: 11126
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Religion / Theology

Post by John »

** 31-Jan-2022 World View: Willful ignorance
Cool Breeze wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:03 pm
> No, your logic is poor - you suggest that God can deceive others
> via the physical world - far different than being on a different
> plane and having POWER over the realms of reality. You excuse
> deception for doing "whatever you want" which is not what God
> does, or has ever done. This is clear to an honest, logical
> thinker, and you failed here again in this situation of
> application.
You're standing in judgment of God's motives? Do you really believe
that you understand God's purpose, or that you know more than God
does? Or are you displaying willful ignorance?
Cool Breeze wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:03 pm
> Silly relativism. Either he's a good example to follow (compared
> to others) or he's not. He's not, period. He's the antithesis of
> someone like Christ, literally, and it's ridiculous to not
> understand this or point it out. That you don't believe anything
> is different religiously, or real, is irrelevant to the facts at
> hand and what people teach regarding religions. Your relativism
> doesn't change Mo having harems, killling people, or telling
> others he's the real messenger, which is false and can't exist on
> any plane when others claim things that are diametrically
> opposed.
Did you read this paragraph after you wrote it? It's meaningless word
salad, totally babble. But I suppose that's true of a lot of stuff
you write. Is this more willful ignorance?
Cool Breeze wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:03 pm
> This is a true statement, and totally betrays your argument. You
> don't see that? This is precisely the point of "religion" or
> "truth" or what people seek to be truly human. Some religions
> teach that bad attributes are actually ok (Islam, since its
> founder did many of these bad things) and acceptable. Others
> don't. Don't bother responding unless you can actually counter
> this point, which is the point of our discussion here. You are
> schizophrenic on this issue.
Please don't bother responding unless can actually enumerate the "bad
things" that you claim Mohammed did. Otherwise, your claim is just
willful ignorance.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests