Macs and Religion

[the Otter]

Why advertise your church rather than Jesus himself/

Good question, krossfyter! Actually, I’ve seen posts from at least two other Latter-day Saints on here, so I guesss there’s a few of us. Also, I happen to know that our Church’s monthly magazine, The Ensign, is created entirely in Mac OS! Score one for the Saints!

I guess the way I see it is that there’s thousands upon thousands of churches out there that teach that Jesus is the Christ, and while that’s a great foundation to have (an essential one, actually), there’s more to it than that. In short, if I advertise Christ, it can help people out; but if I advertise His Church, it can help people more — and if they accept the latter, they will necessarily accept the former along the way.

btw - on a somewhat related note, the term “Mormon,” when used to describe the Saints, has a history of derision. It all started in the 1830s, when the lawless mobs of the American frontier decided that the Church (which, in those days, tended to vote as a block) was too powerful and must be exterminated. It wasn’t easy to get a mob together to go and kill the “Saints;” but call them “Mormons,” and everybody ran to get their guns! The state of Missouri even defied the U.S. Constitution and made “Mormonism” a capital offense! (This law remained on the books until 1974.)
So basically, I see calling someone a “Mormon” as being like calling someone a “n*gger.” Sure, some people within both of these subcultures (for lack of a better term) use the term internally, but it’s not the kind of thing you want to call just anyone, y’know?

Like you said, nothing to get hot about — just an FYI.

 

[krossfyter]

thanks for the response.


i see your point. but i repectfully disagree with your church being the only true church or the true church at all.

i firmly believe..(and God has made this clear to me)..

that the trust in Jesus is all one needs...not a doctrine...nor a religion..nor a creed...nor a certain church itself. if you believe in Jesus then you believe in his church ...which is made up of all that believe in him....not just latter day saints (or ones that follow the mormon doctrine).

Jesus said it himself "It is finished".

no need to add on with a joseph smith (who i am higly skeptical about..with him being a necromancer and a faliable human regardless).

so while i do resepect you and your views I dont agree with them....and never will.


Jesus is all I need. no extra book or man is to be added.

Besides those scriptures that mormons bring up to craddle thier view.... are high on the stretch factor..... the muslims use this too with the old testament in craddling thier views on muhammed.


im not trying to be a butt here...im cool with you...and i would give you a hug and be your friend if i knew you outside of these forums, im sure.... but i just would never believe in the mormon doctrine...the same as you wouldnt believe in the way i believe.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Hmmm...

So basically, I see calling someone a “Mormon” as being like calling someone a “n*gger.”

So, then, why did you create a link to a site at "mormon.org?"

 

[Timo_Existencia]

CS Lewis Sig...

Krossfyter...thus far, you've been fairly good at sticking to an expression of your faith. As much as I'd like to engage you in the dialogue, this is not the forum to foster religious debate. However, you keep trying to "sneak" in your message of christianity in ever stronger and stronger terms. So, now that you've added this new "sig" to all of your postings, I think I'll comment directly on it.

First off...let me emphasize that religion is a matter of faith, not reason and/or logic. The CS Lewis quote attempts to create a logical construct for the existence of God. It is the type of quote that is loved by believers, but is completely unconvincing to skeptics. Why? Because logic does not lead to the conclusion that he arrives at. Let's look a bit closer:

Suppose there were no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking.

Right. But the "nobody" doesn't mean that it was random or unimportant. The natural evolution of certain skills, among which is the skill of "thinking" and "reason" has very specific benefits in nature. Our ability to "think" and "reason" give us an advantage towards survival. So, even if this purpose were not intelligently designed, it is still an important and useful tool within the context of our existence.

Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?

You can't always trust your own thinking to be true. There is no "guarantee" on thinking that says it is true. Even if "thinking" was the product of intelligent design, you'd still not be able to trust that it would be true. And, I think you recognize this, correct? You don't think that every thought you think is true, do you? Truth is a subjective term.

The point is, all thinking should be tested to the extent possible. Intelligent design or not.

But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course, I can't trust the agruements leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else.

If you can't trust your own thinking, which may lead to Atheism, you also can't trust any thinking that would lead you to believe in a God. Atheists tend to over-state their "knowledge" in much the same ways as those who believe in God. Atheists can be just as dogmatic as religionists. But, his point is hollow; he can't attack the "logic" of Atheism without also attacking the "logic" of a belief in God.

Unless I belive in God, I can't belive in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelive in God. C.S Lewis

He hasn't establised any basis as to why thought is better if it is intelligently designed as opposed to naturally designed. If it is naturally designed, it is naturally good at the things it has been designed to do. He has drawn a conclusion that is unwarranted on the facts that he has presented. He has built a sort of straw-man argument to support his conclusion.

In the end...he is trying to argue that his faith in God is based in logic. It is not...it is based in faith.

 

[Kid Red]

I don't believe in god, I believe Jesus was some guy who preached, nothing more and nothing less. We are atoms created from the big bang, and are direct ascendants of apes, or Adam and Eve (both white?) popped out of thin air in their early 20's sitting under a tree? mmm, I think I'll go with science on this one. All religions are to be taken as seriously as Greek mythology. They are simply fables (some with morals) to explain how things are and should be done.

Believe in what you want to believe in, that's the beauty of free thought and individuality. I just hate when religious people try to push their beliefs on others and attempt to 'convert' them. I don't go door to door telling PC owners they will burn in hell if they don't turn to the goodness of the Mac, so why do religious followers feel the need to push their opinions?

Yea, there's a big whole in the center of the earth with lakes of fire and when sinners die they keep their bodies and drop into this hole and fight with a big red guy with horns, tail and pitch fork? Mythical characters. I am more spiritual, I believe in reincarnation, spirits (not angels) karma, and positive and negative energy. Live you life in a positive light, and you surround yourself with positive energy, screw around and that negative energy will bite you in the ass. What goes around comes around, and some other cliches do have their place. But to live and die by the words in a book (bible) that were written 30 years after christ died, and translated into I can't count how many languages is simply laughable. Then you have the religious fanatics...wait, that's another topic

(one more thing at least with christianity- how can someone murder 50 people, rape 40 kids under the age of 7 be forgiven and go to heaven simply by begging forgiveness and repenting for their sins? LOL)

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Kid Red
I don't believe in god, I believe Jesus was some guy who preached, nothing more and nothing less. We are atoms created from the big bang, and are direct ascendants of apes, or Adam and Eve (both white?) popped out of thin air in their early 20's sitting under a tree? mmm, I think I'll go with science on this one. All religions are to be taken as seriously as Greek mythology. They are simply fables (some with morals) to explain how things are and should be done.

Believe in what you want to believe in, that's the beauty of free thought and individuality. I just hate when religious people try to push their beliefs on others and attempt to 'convert' them. I don't go door to door telling PC owners they will burn in hell if they don't turn to the goodness of the Mac, so why do religious followers feel the need to push their opinions?

Yea, there's a big whole in the center of the earth with lakes of fire and when sinners die they keep their bodies and drop into this hole and fight with a big red guy with horns, tail and pitch fork? Mythical characters. I am more spiritual, I believe in reincarnation, spirits (not angels) karma, and positive and negative energy. Live you life in a positive light, and you surround yourself with positive energy, screw around and that negative energy will bite you in the ass. What goes around comes around, and some other cliches do have their place. But to live and die by the words in a book (bible) that were written 30 years after christ died, and translated into I can't count how many languages is simply laughable. Then you have the religious fanatics...wait, that's another topic

(one more thing at least with christianity- how can someone murder 50 people, rape 40 kids under the age of 7 be forgiven and go to heaven simply by begging forgiveness and repenting for their sins? LOL)

first of all, faith is not based on logic and i know it does not seem logical to some that an evil person could change repent and go to heaven

but that is the belief of christianity and one of the early spokesmen of christianity, the apostle paul, killed and perhaps tortured hundreds if not thousands of christians before he changed and became a christian himself

though it does not seem logical that such a bloodthirsty man like paul the apostle could change, that change in behavior can only be explained by faith

one has to remember, paul the apostle used to be so evil he was like the hitler of his times according to the christians who were in fear of being decimated by paul...but thanks to god and paul's change in attitude, christianity exists today

 

[mischief]

Faith most certainly CAN be based on logic.

I think therefore I am.

A logical statement of Faith.

In the realm of absolutes and CS Lewis:

Any idea recorded by the brain is not the truth but an amalgamation of associated data (illogical//irrational association) attatched to the observational memory of that idea. Therefore no living being can know the truth. We can guess all we want ........... in the end the quest for ultimate truth is simply an amusement.

Faith stands on it's own. Even without a Dogma one can have Faith. It's just trusting the Universe.......period. That's Faith.

 

[krossfyter]

Re: CS Lewis Sig...

Originally posted by Timothy
Krossfyter...thus far, you've been fairly good at sticking to an expression of your faith. As much as I'd like to engage you in the dialogue, this is not the forum to foster religious debate. However, you keep trying to "sneak" in your message of christianity in ever stronger and stronger terms. So, now that you've added this new "sig" to all of your postings, I think I'll comment directly on it.

First off...let me emphasize that religion is a matter of faith, not reason and/or logic. The CS Lewis quote attempts to create a logical construct for the existence of God. It is the type of quote that is loved by believers, but is completely unconvincing to skeptics. Why? Because logic does not lead to the conclusion that he arrives at. Let's look a bit closer:

He hasn't establised any basis as to why thought is better if it is intelligently designed as opposed to naturally designed. If it is naturally designed, it is naturally good at the things it has been designed to do. He has drawn a conclusion that is unwarranted on the facts that he has presented. He has built a sort of straw-man argument to support his conclusion.

In the end...he is trying to argue that his faith in God is based in logic. It is not...it is based in faith.

its good to know people are looking....even if they still mis understand the whole context of the message.
while i see your point... i have to say you misread the sig man. dig it!

however... i understand there are those that dont believe in God being Logical and those that do. I am one who does believe GOd is logical...that I can also use my mind to reach.

I already have the heart and soul part...now im going for the mind part.

So far it has been succesful. Afterall God wants us to know him with all our heart and mind. EVRERYTHING ABOUT US we can use to know him. Not a hard concept. If you choose just to believe in GOd through faith...then awsome...for thats the primary key. Once you enter you find out that there is more to it then you ever would have thought. If you simply see it through faith alone...then thats your bag and im sure you wont be knocked for that. However once you know God....you kinda cant help but wanting to know more about him through other areas. Its sorta addicting. It takes initial faith to come to GOd. But after that is a whole different world.



dig it!


p.s. now that i have recieved so much "rave" reviews on my c.s. lewis sig... i will continue on this road...with more qoutes later on. lets see how these homeboys pic apart and mis read the writitng and or thoughts of one of the greatest intellectuals of the 20th century.

 

[mischief]

The Mac parallel:

I once tried to find UltimateTruth ............ I always got the same error:

File "Ultimate Truth.dmg" is in use by "Physical Universe.app" You must first exit the Application.

After half an ounce of Hash I got:

File "Ultimate Truth.dmg" was created by root. You do not have sufficient privileges to access.

I could try suicide but then I couldn't report back.

 

[krossfyter]

could it possibly be the kind of hash you were using?

 

[mischief]

Naw.....

I just couldn't remember my root login..........it's been like 40 billion years and (2^n) divisions of conciousness.

I should reformat this thing soon.......the edges are going all red.

 

[krossfyter]

bc? or that nasty mexican stuff? try it without.

 

[krossfyter]

got root?

anyways... i have been thinking ....

why do i always get the feeling that no matter what i say how i say it... (so as long as i believe in Christ) im always going to get slammed by those who dont? even if im nice and or respectful... i try to be? hmmm...

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Descartes Meditations...

Faith most certainly CAN be based on logic. I think therefore I am. A logical statement of Faith.

I think, perhaps, we are using differing meanings for the word faith. You are using Descartes conclusion (although slightly mistated) to support your idea. If you asked Descartes whether or not his above statement was based in faith, he would have scoffed; his entire intent was to build a "logical" basis for his belief in God beyond faith.

Even he acknowledged a distinction between faith and logic. I would posit that what you have expressed is more aptly labeled as a logical statement based in accepted assumptions. I may very well accept the same assumptions that would lead to the conclusion stated: I exist.

But, Descartes arguments break down in a number of ways.

Any idea recorded by the brain is not the truth but an amalgamation of associated data (illogical//irrational association) attatched to the observational memory of that idea. Therefore no living being can know the truth. We can guess all we want ........... in the end the quest for ultimate truth is simply an amusement.

Though I agree with the ideas you present here, I still think there is utility in searching for "truth" so long as we define our assumptions, and recognize our limitations.

Faith stands on it's own. Even without a Dogma one can have Faith. It's just trusting the Universe.......period. That's Faith.

Perhaps. I see faith as that which we hold to even in the face of logical and/or other doubts.

 

[mischief]

It's the history of the thing.

There are just too many folks who are either expatriot Christians or only ever encounter missionary zealots. That combined with the bloody history of the West in which countless lives were taken in the name of "Christianity" makes it a hard religion to come out as.

The thing to remember is:

Any religion that has a large population of poor, uneducated and otherwise mistreated folks can easily be used to start conflict. It doesn't take any talent to start a war with scripture. It just takes a lot of unhappy people of a particular religion, a highlighter and a copy of the text. Anyone can start a war by picking the passages that are most inflammatory and tying it into existing animosity.

This is how we get terrorists. It's not Islam. It's the large number of poor Muslims worldwide being fooled by a lot of jerks with Korans and highlighters.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Faith & Logic...

Krossfyter...if your logic convinced you that God did not exist...would you abandon your faith?

 

[krossfyter]

good question timothy.

there in lies faith alone. which i do have and im not without no matter what happens. when it all comes down to it.... trust (faith) in God is what holds me regardless of what my mind or man says on him.


however...such a statement for me (as you have made) would simply be an im possible situation. being that my logic shows me to GOd...never the other way. if i had no faith in the first place...i would never have found this logic.


but i see your point for what it is... and my answe is simply no. but once again i like your question because this is the essence of what it means to have faith and or trust in God.


its important to note here that i dont think i could have found this logic without faith first. i have never meet anyone that has. if there is such a person...please let me know.

thanks.

 

[Judo]

Hey krossfyter.
feel free to ignore this post cause I know it can get annoying having to defend your thoughts at every courner, but to me it seems you have put yourself in a position where you are intellectually running around in circles and that no matter what you could always find a logic that will point you towards a truth that there is a god regardless of what you read or see, which could stop you from learning somethings.

I know Im sticking my nose in here, but in which way did Timothy misread your sig??

You reccomended Mere Christianity in an early post, I'll look out for it but I cant promise I'll get around to reading it. Also to me a book which can and has been used as a tool to destroy peoples lives and freedoms seems to be wrong about a few things.


Having said that I have a high respect for ya. you seem kind, generous and accepting of other people.
Big HUgs with no politacal, social or religious agendas attached all round I say.

 

[jefhatfield]

if i was a christian two thousand years ago, i would have thought the earth to be 4,000 years old and the earth to be flat

but i am a christian today and i know the earth is round and certainly way older than a few thousand years old, but there is no science that will refute that there was a man named jesus who got crucified for claiming to be god...and came back

so if science tomorrow proves that cancer is caused by vegetables and you can lose weight by eating a lot of carrots, it won't change what jesus did for us or the recorded history of his good deeds for mankind

 

[Judo]

Its writting in an old book that is hard to prove or disprove and just because it has been written down it dosn't mean it's true. I have yet to see or hear of any proof of any story written in the bible ie: Resurection, Noahs Ark, Adam & Eve, these stories defy modern science. (like i said before I dont have a huge amount of knowledge on the bible)

Would a christian of today believe that the human race came from Adam and Eve??

and if not why would you still believe that Jesus was the son of God who was resurected and will one day return?

 

[jefhatfield]

many christians have many different interpretations of what is written in the old and new testaments...and the bible was written by many authors in three languages

i am happy that i got a chance to do seminary school, but all that knowledge is not what is important, it became evident that within the school, students and teachers have completely different beliefs on different issues...except for who jesus christ was and what he did

so if you want to argue about the gift of tongues, age of the earth, practices of ancient israel, how jesus viewed women, how israel viewed jesus, how the romans treated the jews, faith healing, baptism styles, or even using musical instruments in church, go ahead...those are fascinating intellectual exercises and worthy of study and debate

but all christians believe jesus died for the sins of the world...and some non christians believe that, too

 

[the Otter]

Mormon.org

So basically, I see calling someone a “Mormon” as being like calling someone a “n*gger.”
---
So, then, why did you create a link to a site at "mormon.org?"

Another very good question. IMHO, the reason The Church of Jesus Christ maintains a web site with the URL “Mormon.org” is the same reason Apple owns “iMac.com”: like it or not (and I see no reason Apple wouldn’t like it), it’s what someone might look for. It is important to note that Mormon.org is a web site designed for those who don’t yet know much about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and would therefore be more likely to know the term “Mormon” than “Latter-day Saint.” The Church’s official home page, however — and the one that’s been around for years — is actually http://www.LDS.org (after the common abbreviation for Latter-day Saints).

On that note, I do want to clarify one more thing: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the word “Mormon.” Mormon was a great man, a Christian prophet who lived on the American continent in the fourth century A.D.. He complied and abridged the scriptural records of his people, a Judaic family that left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. and eventually became the primary ancestors of the Native American tribes. Because Mormon compiled these sacred records, the volume is known, in modern times, as The Book of Mormon.

To reiterate: Mormon the man = good.
Mormon, a synonym for Latter-day Saint = not so good.

 

[the Otter]

Necromancy?

no need to add on with a joseph smith (who i am higly skeptical about..with him being a necromancer and a faliable human regardless).

...

Jesus is all I need. no extra book or man is to be added.

So I guess we agree to disagree, huh? Well, I suppose that’s okay for now.
Anyway, my rebuttal:

First of all, much as rumours of Mark Twain’s death were highly exaggerated, so is the so-called necromancy of Joseph Smith, Jr.. While many Latter-day Saints have not done the same, I have studied his life quite extensively, reading biograpies from both LDS and non-LDS authors. The reports of Joseph’s involvement with the conjuring of spirits seem to stem from the 1826 trial in which he was accused (and, some claim, convicted) of said crime. This is quite unsurprising, given the area and time in which he lived; it was a superstitous revivalism that gripped upstate New York, one in which young Joseph was very much caught up (hence the events leading up to his first Divine visitation ). The crux of this argument is the testimony of Josiah Stowell, who, in a time of great destitution for the Smith family, hired both Joseph Sr. and Joseph Jr. to help him dig for buried treasure (which, I might add, Joseph Jr. stated was probably not there, and was certainly never found). It was this same man who spearheaded this accusation, and did so only after he lost money, having paid his workers a decent sum to dig for the probably non-existent treasure. (And even if Joseph was found guilty — which is also disputable — all agree that no sentence was ever imposed.)

Now that the facts have been laid out, let us argue, for a moment, the position that young Joseph was as bad as you say he was. Let us assume, for a moment, the worst: that he was, in fact, involved in necromancy in his youth. If you refer to his own writings, he admits his imperfections. In fact, he openly states that he was not given The Book of Mormon to translate until 1827 (note: after the aformentioned trial) because he was, in many ways, an evil man, and had great need to repent. How is this not like the Biblical Apostle Paul? He was also a wicked man, whose sins were much greater than that of a boy who dabbled with his generation’s equivalent of a Ouija board. And yet who would deny that Paul’s conversion was real? What Christian would deny his authority? Yes, Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallible human, and he repeatedly stated that throughout his life.

Now, onto your second comment: that Jesus is all you need. This response will be much shorter, as it need not be long (and I need to get to bed, anyway).

I agree with you wholeheartedly that Jesus is all that we need, and that no extra book or man is to be added. But to deny the existence of scripture written after the life of Christ is to deny the entire New Testament. Yes, Jesus said “It is finished,” but then he came back! — so if “it” was revelation, then Jesus becomes a liar and we have a major paradox on our hands.

Moving on, no, I don’t need Joseph Smith Jr., per se, in order to be saved; but I do need to know who Jesus Christ is, and I need to accept the infinite sacrifice he made for my sins. I also need to understand the things He wants me to do, to get back to Him — things that will make me happy both in this life and the life to come. The teachings of the prophets — including Joseph Smith Jr. — make this much easier than if I had to figure it all out by myself.

The bottom line is this, krossfyter: if documents were discovered tomorrow that irrefutably proved Joseph Smith Jr. to be a child molester and a serial killer, I would still be a member of The Church Christ restored through him. My witness is not based on a man — neither Joseph Smith Jr. nor anyone else — but on a God, who is Jesus the Christ. And you can take that to the bank.

---

P.S. If you’re interested in a fairly non-biased (yes, I know; there’s no such thing, really) book on the Prophet Joseph Smith, you may want to check out Richard L. Bushman’s Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism. Very interesting stuff!

 

[MacAztec]

Ok thats a rap

We have seen enough of this post, i believe. All i gots to say is you Jews are really being stupid. Just kidding, no offence to anyone, just trying to stir up some stuff. Anyways, I dont think religion has to do anything with macs, so, arn, close this thread!

 

[jefhatfield]

this religious discussion doesn't belong in article discussions, software rumors, hardware rumors, etc, but i think so many of us flew off topic so much of the time that he created the "general discussion" board since we, as humans, are more than just mac users

before this category on these boards, there were rampant flamewars in article discussions, sex/sexism, religion, politics, etc, but now those off color, off topic discussions seem to be safely put into the general discussion territory so if you want to find mac stuff, all the other categories will be more or less on target

my 2 cents