|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 12:23:01 GMT -5
No... I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of those who attack a holy book over it's refusal to change, THEN go right ahead and attack the holy book because it's changed! Are you even remotely aware of what a deity is? How about deitific concepts and attributes like needing to exist outside of space time, omnipresence, omniescience and omnipotence? Seriously, are you facetiously playing dumb here, or should you actually be asking n00b questions instead of passing ill-informed opinion? Ahem... are you able to accept that attacking a book SIMPLY because it has changed is wrong? Fundies do that with Science books, and they are mocked for it. If you accept that, then you will agree that rejecting a holy book SIMPLY because it has been changed is wrong. As such, you will agree with my point that rejecting a holy book based on simple change ONLY is something to be avoided. If, on the other hand, you DON'T agree, then you accept that Fundies rejecting Science books SIMPLY because they change is right. Nothing you've just brought up has any bearing on the subject... and insulting me over something that isn't even part of the argument is pretty useless. Will you at least try to understand what I'm saying this time?
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 20, 2009 12:32:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 20, 2009 12:35:54 GMT -5
No, I didn't make such a statement. Did you confuse a few of the items on my list? You did actually say something to that effect several times... Not necessarily changing his own teachings...but the religion in general: While only one is Joseph Smith himself, they give the impression of reversing teachings and or statements, and just from your short list of rebuttals. It's just strange to skeptics that the word of god should be imperfect in anyway, even if it's the word, "white." For the second item you cited, the reason why it was changed - as I explained - was because the usage of the word "white" was so archaic that people couldn't quite understand what he was getting at. Thus, for the sake of comprehension he chose to re-render the word as "pure" since that's what he meant in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 12:36:04 GMT -5
A valid point was actally raised. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation in regards to religions changing. Unless that religion has a disclaimer on it that states "While this is what we believe, we are open to new revelations at all time and thus are willing to change our viewpoints if enough evidence is presented". It goes a bit further than that... by attacking the fact that they have changed the book, we are helping to set up a reason for them NOT to change. After all, if all that's going to happen when they change is a load of crap, why change at all? It just seems such a waste of time and it does, in some small way, validate their refusal to change. It gives them more of a reason to entrench themselves in with their beliefs, and help to fuel any persecution prophecy said belief has. On the other hand, if we attack the REASON they change... show that change is welcome, but should be for the right reason... we give them an incentive to change and (with a little luck) help them to understand WHY they needed to change. (and need to continue changing) Maybe, maybe not... but it'd certainly remove the whole "certainty" thing those religions hold.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 20, 2009 12:50:33 GMT -5
I'm aware of that. That wasn't my question. Why are they verboten? The lay belief is that many "hot" drinks contain chemicals and other items that, when taken in the quantities the items are often consumed, can do a number on the body. For example, some varieties of tea contain tannic acid. A glass or two a day won't hurt a person, but beyond that you're asking for trouble. In fact, the oral surgeon I went to in order to have my wisdom teeth extracted actually recommended that I use tea in case my sockets kept bleeding as the acid content would serve to cauterize them shut. Likewise, the minimal amounts of caffeine in things like chocolate aren't much of a concern but when you start talking different types of coffees (and nowadays, energy drinks) and the way people guzzle them down you're looking at folks who are just begging for ulcers, heart attacks, or other sorts of damage to their body. It's explicitly stated as being off-limits, save for medicinal purposes. The implication is that it's due to both the addictive properties and the amount of physical damage that can be done. And yes, there are medicinal uses for tobacco, uses which reflect how much damage it can indeed do to the body if a person isn't careful: [1]. If a person has a wound, a poultice of tobacco can be applied. The tobacco is such thorough overkill in regards to cleansing wounds that if you use too much you can actually kill live tissue. It'll leave a distinct scar, but other than that wounds will heal quite perfectly. [2]. If cattle are sick, a single leaf of tobacco in with their food functions as an uber-laxative. That single leaf will purge the contents of their entire stomach and digestive tract, such that not even parasites will remain in their system. Now remember this next time you feel the urge to light up... For pharmaceuticals and other actual medicines, they're to be taken with caution. Over-the-counter stuff is to be done by the rules, and anything stronger is only to be done under a doctor's orders and supervision. Illegal substances are just that - illegal. They are to be avoided. LDS sources or non-LDS sources? I ask as it's mostly LDS sources who recount the full extent of the legal persecution, and not many posters here accept those. If you're willing to give them a shot, however, I'll scare up some sources. For non-LDS sources, a good starter work is Norman Furniss' "The Utah War: 1850-1858." Although the focus is on the so-called "Utah War," the author discusses at length the situation that led to the conflict and its aftermath. Paperback copies can be found on Half.com for $20 to $40; the print runs are limited owing to it being a specialty topic, and so that's why the book is so comparatively expensive.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 20, 2009 12:54:10 GMT -5
we would no longer accept evolution or the Big Band Swing music is actually quite popular among some LDS circles... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 12:56:39 GMT -5
I have never criticised the fact that doctrine changes, only the reasons why and how it changes. Which makes sense... And indeed I was... Then I take it you agree that attacking the validity of the book just because some of the contents is changed isn't right... attacking the REASON why it has been changed is the thing to do. Or is something changing a valid reason to reject something now? It's not an attack, it's a reasoned systematic evaluation. Scripture shouldn't get special treatment. If anything doesn't pass it gets rejected, religious or not.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 20, 2009 13:09:51 GMT -5
we would no longer accept evolution or the Big Band Swing music is actually quite popular among some LDS circles... ;D Okay skyfire, that was admittedly kinda funny
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 13:52:46 GMT -5
It's not an attack, it's a reasoned systematic evaluation. Yes, but what I'm refering to wasn't a reasoned systemic evaluation... it was just outright rejection because there had been a change. That is what I'm getting at... not what you're suggesting. (which is a good thing to do, by the way) True... but we should also evaluate the stuff rather than just rejecting it out of hand without looking at it.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 20, 2009 14:05:34 GMT -5
It goes a bit further than that... by attacking the fact that they have changed the book, we are helping to set up a reason for them NOT to change. After all, if all that's going to happen when they change is a load of crap, why change at all? It just seems such a waste of time and it does, in some small way, validate their refusal to change. It gives them more of a reason to entrench themselves in with their beliefs, and help to fuel any persecution prophecy said belief has. On the other hand, if we attack the REASON they change... show that change is welcome, but should be for the right reason... we give them an incentive to change and (with a little luck) help them to understand WHY they needed to change. (and need to continue changing) You're still missing a fundamental difference between science and religion (which was already pointed out): Science, from the beginning, says: "What we are telling you now is provisional. When new information arises, we will correct it" Religion says: "This is the Truth, revealed to us by [Insert deity or prophet here]. This is divine and absolute knowledge, whoever disagrees is wrong" Religion itself sets the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, by claiming its knowledge is divine and not human. It doesn't make sense for them to change. New revelation could add information, but it can't contradict previous revelation, otherwise it wouldn't be divine revelation.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 20, 2009 14:16:57 GMT -5
It goes a bit further than that... by attacking the fact that they have changed the book, we are helping to set up a reason for them NOT to change. After all, if all that's going to happen when they change is a load of crap, why change at all? It just seems such a waste of time and it does, in some small way, validate their refusal to change. It gives them more of a reason to entrench themselves in with their beliefs, and help to fuel any persecution prophecy said belief has. Yes and no... No one attacks them solely for changing. This has been pointed out to you on several occaisions by both me and several others. Furthermore, even if they did, this would not be the reason why they resisted change. What you say after that is quite true, in the fact that the world becomes a better place when people accept science and progress and put aside primitive barbarism, superstition and ideas from 3,000 years ago. However, all of this is merely another VALID criticism of the ramifications of dogmatic dogma and dogmatisms - and their adherents resistance and inflexibility. If people are being attacked for cherry picking and accepting some change, it is not a demand that they go back to pig ignorance (nor would anyone with any sense do so), it's a cry that they keep going the rest of the way and cast off the shackles and remaining vestiges of indoctrinated hogwash. And just for the thread we're in - don't forget changes aren't necessarily for the better and not all changes are truths. The book of mormon was a 'change'. It certainly isn't an improvement on mainstream Christianity. The book of Abraham was a 'change'. It's even worse. Halfwitted embellishments are what started the problem in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 20, 2009 14:18:23 GMT -5
Are you even remotely aware of what a deity is? How about deitific concepts and attributes like needing to exist outside of space time, omnipresence, omniescience and omnipotence? Seriously, are you facetiously playing dumb here, or should you actually be asking n00b questions instead of passing ill-informed opinion? Ahem... are you able to accept that attacking a book SIMPLY because it has changed is wrong? Fundies do that with Science books, and they are mocked for it. If you accept that, then you will agree that rejecting a holy book SIMPLY because it has been changed is wrong. As such, you will agree with my point that rejecting a holy book based on simple change ONLY is something to be avoided. If, on the other hand, you DON'T agree, then you accept that Fundies rejecting Science books SIMPLY because they change is right. Nothing you've just brought up has any bearing on the subject... and insulting me over something that isn't even part of the argument is pretty useless. Will you at least try to understand what I'm saying this time? You're still as wrong as when you were corrected all the other times. I assume I addressed where you were trying to go with this in the other message though.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 14:23:23 GMT -5
It's not an attack, it's a reasoned systematic evaluation. Yes, but what I'm refering to wasn't a reasoned systemic evaluation... it was just outright rejection because there had been a change. That is what I'm getting at... not what you're suggesting. (which is a good thing to do, by the way) True... but we should also evaluate the stuff rather than just rejecting it out of hand without looking at it. Show me where this happened.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 20, 2009 15:26:18 GMT -5
So if a church makes changes in teaching/doctrine/text that makes it less offensive or back-words they should not be given any credit for that, just because some of there other teachings ect. are still back-words?
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 15:36:20 GMT -5
Current, Julian, Death... I refer all three of you to the post schizophonic made... (#47 to be precise)
In that post, a question was raised about why the book would need changing... the fact that the best source they have for that book is a translation done by (what they will term) a falliable human being, thus meaning the translation itself could be wrong means that the question itself didn't need to be asked... all it did was cast doubt on the book itself for the simple reason that it had been changed.
It made no mention of the method behind it being changed, just drew attention to it being changed and implying that it thus could not be trusted.
As I pointed out, the exact same question can be, AND IS, raised in regards to science books being changed... in those cases, there is no mention of the method behind it being changed, just the drawing of attention to the fact it has been changed and implying that they thus cannot be trusted.
Now, I pointed out that what was done was just what Fundies often do with science books... and that such a tactic is ripped apart on the main page, and rightly so. I also pointed out that using the same tactic, even in a subtle manner, is something that really should be dealt with.
At such point, I was jumped on... and not because of the fact I'd drawn attention to the use of the same tactic as some Fundies like to use. (albeit in a subtle way)
I have been informed that, even if it's corrected, said holy books are a permanent record of how wrong they were... in response, I would say that older science books are a permanent record of how wrong WE were. (remember, we are talking about change only... there is no mention of the method behind it, so trying to appeal to the Scientific Method doesn't work)
I've been informed that it's about HOW the new information gets there... which doesn't deal with the fact that it was a book being changed that was calling it into doubt, NOT how it was changed. Again, not the same thing and not valid.
I've been informed that they insist the "Truth never changes" even while they DO admit to the BoM being a translation done by a falliable human being... and thus could be wrong in places. (swap truth for reality, and you get the common argument from our side, by the way...)
I've been accused of equating "untested prophetically inspired change in doctrine with careful scientific evaluation and testing of new facts and hypotheses and the resultant revision of the body of scientific knowledge?" when I'm not even talking about the method! Seriously, why bring that in when it's not relevent?
I've been accused of leaving out context... yet someone leaving out context is EXACTLY what I was pointing out! (and thank you schizophonic for that... since you were the one who left the context out in the first place, I think your point that "In a discussion, it's intellectual dishonesty" is something you should bear in mind)
And, we've had the meaning of "Deity" brought in... as though that changes the fact that a book being changed was used as a reason to cast doubt on it!
Where, in all of that, was ever given a reason for why it is acceptable to reject a book due simly to it having been changed? That is the point I was making, that is the point you all managed to miss.
Being taken to task for correcting something that is wrong is what I expect from those who have a vested interest in there not being any change... if we have come to that point on this board, then what difference is there between the Fundies and us?
Think it over.... and cast doubt for valid reasons, not just because there was change.
|
|