darth_ender

Hey!  Why so presumptious?  You never know!  He could have moved!  Geez!

Jar Jar Binks

mrbenja0618 said:

Ok, I'll throw my hat in the ring. As I've said in another thread, I am what you would call a Christian. I currently attend a Baptist church and currently am the active youth minister. I don't really claim any denomination, but I'm here for the time. Don't really care much about denominations anyway. To me it's the division of the church.

Another thought I've had as of late. The word: Christian. I've almost decided to retire it for me as it has been mistreated so much that it's hardly distinguishable to what it actually is supposed to be.

For example, this other thread was hijacked by this specific individuals so-called Christian beliefs... Well, say someone entered the forum with no prior knowledge of what a Christian is.... Well, this individuals hatred becomes the picture of Christ for that person, and that is what gets me.

Lately, I call myself a believer... Follower of the Way if you will. Either the true Christians need a name change, or we need to reclaim it.

Would love to talk to anyone about my beliefs.

Good for you, mrbenja0618.  I admire a person willing to stand for his or her beliefs and share them with the rest.  I assume the person you speak of was the guy who lived by Disneyland.  I appreciate your determination to represent your religion in a Christ-like manner.

greenpenguino said:

darth_ender said:

timdiggerm said:

CP3S said:

was LDS. .

young, handsome LDS

  LDS

I'm sorry, but all I can think about when I read that, is Star Trek 4.

 

Ah, yes, one of my favorite jokes in the film.  Spock really got into the '60s after all, and did a little too much LDS.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

CP3S said:

TV's Frink said:

But the fact (?) that Jesus turned water into wine does make me wonder (again) why alcohol has to be off-limits.  How is this reconciled?

Sadly he seemed content with this and we moved on to other topics. Surprisingly, I've heard the "Clearly it was non-alcoholic wine" on several other occasions. Leads me to believe people will contort their brain to believe anything, no matter how unlikely, as long as it supports what their religion teaches.  Never mind that in a time when refrigeration didn't exist non-alcoholic wine (grape juice?) would spoil in no time flat, clearly wine was non-alcoholic in those days.

 

I am under the impression that you are religious, so you should understand this.

I am not. But I do respect religion, for the most part. I also have an extreme interest in religions, and like to study them.

Well, I certain appreciate such respect, and in turn respect non-believers like you.  Those who are disrespectful, believe religion is the source of all evil, or are simply convinced of their superiority get under my skin.  But the same can be said of any religious person who acts equally disrespectful.

I had the same thought immediately when seeing it.  It looks good, but a fade is not so Star Warsy.  If you want to fix it, I think a simple cut to the star destroyer would be logical; that's how the original movie cuts to it anyhow.  Nothing complicated, and still achieves your tough Vader effect.

Wrong thread, guys, though I authored both of these threads.  I'll copy and paste over there, but I actually can't  answer right now.  About to start a study group.

walkingdork said:

Hoth-Nudist said:

WhatsMyName said:

Can't deny that Maul was the best Sith ever...In the movies that is.

Um no.  (Bill Lumberg voice)- yyyyyeah, um, well Im gonna have to sorta disagree with you there.

 

Surely you mean the prequals? Right?

I like Count Dooku over Darth Maul.

I have to agree, he's pretty cool and actually has an interesting backstory and is not all black and white (which makes me interested in the fanedit discussions that including making him rogue, but not Sith).  I especially enjoyed his character better after reading the novels.

WhatsMyName said:

But he wouldn't fit because the Ghost Jedi were people he knew. He never met Qui-Gon so it wouldn't fit.

Wait, wait, just a minute there.  WhatsMyName has really got a point, guys.  Can't believe you even thought that was a good idea, Battery Man!  You silly!

However, Luke never saw Anakin with hair either, so both Shaw and Christiansen really present some continuity issues here.  Geez, Lucas!  You never did anything right in your life.  No wonder Marcia divorced you!  

(The following is a guilt-filled paragraph, written just before clicking on "Post Reply")  WhatsMyName, I hope you know I'm giving you a hard time a bit.  There is a lot of sarcasm on this board, and I think you miss it sometimes.  Don't let my teasing get you down.  If my first paragraph offends you, just know that the second paragraph is pretty much a jab at everyone else who comments on this board.

Hi, my name is darth_ender, and I like walks on the beach, especially when the sun is setting.  I need someone sensitive, but not afraid to be strong when necessary.  I'm looking for a committed person, so if you're looking for one person who speaks all those languages or lots of different people, it could make a difference in how willing I am to go to lunch with you.

Oh, wait, I thought this was the romance section of the online classifieds.  I speak Spanish pretty well, but you're probably looking for someone more fluent than I.

Sorry, I  just couldn't pass up such an easy joke. :)

I think I deserve some huge reward for finding this winner!

Massive sadness: Probably won't hurt anyone except perhaps yourself.

21B...OR...not 21B

(If Shakespeare penned The Empire Striketh Back)

Hmmm..."This video contains copyrighted material blah, blah, blah..."  I dunno, but it sounds cool.

Blocked already :(

I don't think it's the degault speed.  Remember, Luke really hefted that skull and sparks flew from the controls when it was hit.  It seems like he actually broke the controls that normally allow for a slow descent.

Hope we're caught up and my answers aren't too confusing.  What's kind of interesting about many of these lines of questioning is that these topics are not particularly central to our beliefs, and we do not speak about them in any depth very often.  It's not like we sit around with telescopes looking for Kolob or anything like that.  We spend our time talking about things that are pertinent to salvation, things that probably do not seem so weird to others.  Many of these things are simply not terribly important, and in my view are probably symbolic and analogies of something more eternal that we don't necessarily understand.

You may proceed to ask more if you like, but at this point I will probably not answer for a few days.

Bingowings said:

Is Kolob a star, a planet, a star system or all three (depending on the reference)?

 Kolob is a planet, the closest to where God resides.  We believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, but we believe that he has an actual body, that we were literally created in his image, and that therefore he exists in a definite point of space, just like we do.  This may sound science-fiction-like to many, but to us it is quite logical.  In fact, if you believe in a resurrected Jesus Christ and Heaven, you believe in God being in a single point and residing somewhere.  What's wrong with that somewhere being a definable spot?  How this relates to literal astronomy, I'm not certain.  I have a feeling there is more to this than we understand, and that there is a great deal of symbolism in this.  Perhaps these stars are not simply existent in a universe as we understand it, but instead it is a way of teaching us of a heavenly plane.  I'm not certain, but I hope that clears it up a bit.

walkingdork said:

Mrebo said:

My question is why have you chosen to put your faith into Mormonism?

I would assume most Mormons are Mormons because their parents brought them up that way. The same goes for most religions.

Xhonzi may have said it in harsh way (on another thread), but I agree that children should be left alone until they are an age where they can reason for themselves. We are talking about about an age where kids are trusting enough to believe that an old guy lives on the North Pole and delivers gifts to all the children of the world in a single night in a sled pulled by flying reindeer.

 

 

 70% of Mormons were not raised in the Church, though I'm sure this is more common outside the US.

Children should be left alone with regard to religion?  What about dietary beliefs?  What about morals?  Should we leave them alone about everything until they can decide for themselves if it's right?  Believe me, if a child does not want to believe in something, there will come a time when that child will have the opportunity to choose for him/herself.

Mrebo said:

Ultimately, one does just gotta have faith when it comes to religion. The outstanding question for me is always: okay, well why should I have faith in this or that particular set of beliefs?

When it comes to something like the Garden of Eden being in America, such assertions will not make sense to the many of us who are not Mormons. But it is useful to recognize that every religion has such faith-bound elements that are not supported (and sometimes even contradicted by) known facts. I suspect such a critique of Mormonism might be more pronounced because it is a newer religion with an unusually America-centric slant that many construe as a corruption of Christianity, or as you say "weird."

My question is why have you chosen to put your faith into Mormonism?

 I was indeed born into this Church.  On my mission, however, I had a great challenge and had to decide if I was willing to believe what I'd been taught or if I was wasting my time.  This was in large part where I gained much of my interest in Church history, the critiques of my church which were quite popular in Atlanta, GA, and the faith supporting research that was taking place.  As you've said, all religions take a certain amount of faith in spite of what may not seem logical.  As mortals, we often forget that our understanding is limited, and we are often surprised when what was once thought impossible is in fact inevitable.  Sometimes you have to suspend what you don't understand at the present till an answer comes along later.

timdiggerm said:

CP3S said:

I grew up in city that had a large enough Mormon population that we had a massive temple in the middle of it. If you were white and middle-class in that town, there was a very high chance you were Mormon. I once had an elderly woman approach me in the toy section at some department store when I was six or seven and tell me what an adorable young man I was, then asked if I was LDS. When I told her "no" her response was to look away, say "That's ashame." and not say another word to me. Creepy to start with, that just made it creepier.

My guess? She has a granddaughter and was looking for a nice, young, handsome LDS guy for her. Mormons can't marry non-Mormons, so she wasn't interested in your meeting her granddaughter anymore.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about the "white and middle-class" bit, though.

 In the US, most Mormons are white, I imagine.  The Church does not keep track of race in its records, but the following information might be useful:

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Demographics

The LDS Church has had quite a bit of success in Latin America, where obviously most are Hispanic.  But the white, middle class thing Im' sure is a reference to its white majority nature in the US (funny, since the US is mostly...white and middle-class).

walkingdork said:

In my junior year of high school (1999-2000) I dated an Asian chick who was adopted by a Mormon family. I remember her family refused to drink any beverage with caffeine but that her little brother could drink Caffeine Free Mountain Dew (gross).

I remember she couldn't come to my New Years Eve party because her family was hunkering down for some scary event. Did the Mormons have some sort of end of the world belief for the year 2000? Or was it just Y2K nonsense? I never asked because her quirks were too much for me (although she was damn cute) and we broke up.

 Probably just that family's interest in Y2K.  Definitely not a Church-wide freakout.  I don't think any leaders ever brought it up, and I know I was not concerned in the least.

walkingdork said:

I thought I was getting off the subject :)

So Mormons...we joke about the "magic underwear," but what is it actually all about?

 Garments are not magical in any sense.  We wear them as a "protection."  Is this a protection like the personal shield in Dune (just read the book, so it's the first reference to come to mind :)?  No.  The protection it provides is spiritual in nature.  And how is that the case?  Well, in temples we make covenants to obey God's commandments.  These covenants are not anything bizarre, and are in fact promises to live Christ-like lives, only we find these covenants more binding.  Garments are worn at all times (except for the three S's: sports, showers, sex), and therefore serve as a constant reminder.  They are no more magical than a crucifex worn by most Christian faiths, and instead are symbolic of our devotion and faithfulness to Christ.

walkingdork said:

Bingowings said:

The universe is big enough to account for the possibility of talking snakes and virgin births.

On a universal scale if you can imagine it, it possibly exists somewhere, it's just not necessarily probable you will experience it.

If you were all powerful then you could collapse those probabilities, however small, into certainties.

That doesn't prove God is there and did it but it doesn't provide absolute proof that he doesn't and didn't.

I hear what you are saying. I still think it's all made up bullshit, but I hear what you are saying. Like the universe is big enough to account for the possibility that there is a mountain in the sky where gods of many talents toy with the human race. And maybe one of those gods bangs a human chick and the son grows up to fight monsters like a slithery snake chick with snakes for hair.

I know I'm being shitty about it, (and I really do feel what you are saying), but I think there is a difference between infinite possibilities and moral fairy tales/parables told for generations. I do realize however that you were just pointing out the possibility of a talking snake and not advocating for them.

I know there is no absolute proof that a god/creator does or does not exist. We debate about how the universe started but the why is unclear. I could be agnostic but the idea that somehow someone has managed to map out the whole history of creation by a god in fine detail is such a turn off. I might believe in the possibility that some deity flipped the switched and started the universe but (like Hawking and other physicists) the idea that a god temporarily changes the law of physics to create miracles or bring upon his will is too much.

@darth_ender

I know, I know. More conversation that should be in the religion thread. Well it's too late! Click.

 You do indeed have a somewhat...abrasive style.  I think miracles are God's natural laws that are beyond our current understanding.  This means that I'm not sure exactly how something like the parting of the Red Sea came to pass.  How literal was it that the waters rose up on both sides?  Was there wind?  Was there a large sandbar that was briefly exposed?  Was it some other principle that defies our current understanding of events?  I don't know, but I agree, in most cases God does not adjust his own laws just for fun.  That said, God is capable of doing so if he wishes.  It doesn't seem to make sense to me, but it's possible.

doubleofive said:

darth_ender said:

As for succession, I am assuming you are Roman Catholic or something related (such as Orthodox), given your belief that Christ would not have allowed such a fall of his Church shortly after his death.  It should not be terribly surprising, however, given that previously people were quick to reject God's message.  Paul's letters themselves speak of the consistent intrusion of false doctrine among those who had only recently proselyted.  See here for a nice start on our understanding of a Great Apostasy following Christ's and his apostles' deaths, with scriptures to back it up.  It's not of great depth, but as is most of this stuff, it's a starting point for understanding our perspective.

Protestant/non-denominational, actually. I just find it hard to believe that God would let the church wander aimlessly for 1800 years when it had only been around for 40 or so before the end of the New Testament.

 Oooooh, I like how big my name looks when I am trying to quote you.  Wonder why it did that.  Anyway, I find it interesting as well that a Protestant would believe that God did not allow his Church to go into apostasy at whatever timeframe, as the Protestant movement clearly was a response to what was perceived as improper Catholic teachings and lack of authority.  But as Sluggo pointed out, scriptures indeed show signs of apostasy creeping in before most of the New Testament was even written (this based on the belief that the Pauline epistles are the oldest writings in the New Testament.