cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Beck talk (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12729)

Solon 10-15-2007 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug (Post 135920)
well, since Indy and other Mormons believe Semites wrote the BoM...

Care to finish the thought? I must be too stoopid to follow.

Solon 10-15-2007 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woot (Post 135871)
Well my point is that one of religion's habits is the institutionalization of obsolete ideas. These ideas weren't obsolete at the time, but have long since become so. That so many people still believe in them is the fault of religion. "Primitive" here isn't used as a pejorative, but rather as a description of people who lacked the tools or sophistication necessary to enlighten themselves. I'd like to think that isn't true of modern Americans, and the trends seem to confirm that assumption.

I'm generally not a huge fan of organized religion either, but I think your assumption that sophistication leads to enlightenment is just as prejudicial and narrowly focused as the "obsolete" ideas you criticize. It belies an assumption that "progress" brings "truth."

Tex 10-15-2007 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 136062)
Apparently, like so many of the mullahs, preaching the gospel is more important than living the gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 135998)
I see it only as a tool to justify condescension toward someone ...

...

jay santos 10-15-2007 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 135998)
I know this is going to mean nothing to Tex, coming from me, since my opinion has little value to him, but I think this question is really out of line. If someone is willing to volunteer this information, that's one thing, but I really don't think it's appropriate in any degree in an intellectual discussion.

Woot was fine with it, and that's great, but I would hope that this is not something that's asked of newcomers in the future. I see it only as a tool to justify condescension toward someone, but as irrelevant to a thoughtful discussion.

Active/inactive may not be relevant, but believing (LDS)/non-believing is relevant because certain viewpoints would have totally different connotations depending on if you were believer or not.

Cali Coug 10-15-2007 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 136090)
...

Is this your version of "he started it?"

I think this discussion is very interesting. Please don't ruin it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.