Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well in fairness "a Bible" is a term that has been applied to any sourcebook of rules or principles such as employee manuals and various how-to topical books. So I suppose it's not entirely wrong-headed to think of The Book of Mormon as "the Bible of Mormonism" or the Pali Canon as "the Bible of Buddhism", etc. I wouldn't encourage it with respect to holy books though because it is sloppy characterization and potentially condescending. And I certainly understand why you as a Mormon would want people to understand that you revere both the Bible AND the Book of Mormon.
Well in fairness "a Bible" is a term that has been applied to any sourcebook of rules or principles such as employee manuals and various how-to topical books.
Yes, in a generic sense, you're right. But I'm pretty sure that's not what David in Christ was implying.
Quote:
And I certainly understand why you as a Mormon would want people to understand that you revere both the Bible AND the Book of Mormon.
It's no secret that quite a few of God's self-appointed human representatives are of dubious integrity. We see deliberate ignorance of science, deliberate use of common logical fallacies, using fear and threats to bully people into accepting their theological position, etc.
What's going on? I would expect a perfect and holy God to have better employees here on earth. Maybe God needs to do a better job when screening applicants to be his mouthpieces.
Atheists like to run under a double standard.
If someone points out countries that were atheist that killed massive amounts of people (Communist Russia and China are good examples, having killed about 100 million), the statement is that "it isn't because they are atheist, it's because they were communist." But when Christians behave badly, it's because they are Christians, not because of whatever else they are as people.
Either atheism is personally responsible for alot of violence in the world (given that a very small percent of wars ONLY have religion as their cause), and Christians are responsible for their child molesting and other failings too.
Or religion (or lack thereof) has nothing to with a person's actions.
Either atheism is personally responsible for alot of violence in the world (given that a very small percent of wars ONLY have religion as their cause), and Christians are responsible for their child molesting and other failings too.
Or religion (or lack thereof) has nothing to with a person's actions.
I'm ok with this. People are responsible for their actions. I can agree that religion is more about justification rather than causation.
But if, "religion (or lack thereof) has nothing to with a person's actions.", then what good is it? Religion invariable makes claims about being important for morality, for encouraging good or noble behavior. If that isn't true, it seems us non-believers may be on to something...
That said, I believe that that is the point. Religion is supposed to be there to guide decisions of military, science, etc through moralism.
There are corrupt priests. There are sex fiends. Which again makes the answer clear.
A worldview is needed to have its own valid moral system. Within that system, there are humans with strengths and faults of their own. As long as we do not ascribe problems of the individual to the culture or blame problems of the culture on the individual, I'm cool.
What does this mean? It means we judge people based on their strengths and faults, and religions on their text. If the Qu'ran or Bible or whatever, says love your enemy, this is the culture promoted by the religion (and people can point out past actions in the OT, but be reminded, that was the OT. While shameful, this does not mean the same actions are or should be condoned). If a person instead hates their neighbor, they are at odds with the culture they supposedly belong. Likewise, if there is someone who is an okay person, but the culture advocates violent action to nonbelievers, we have to act against the whole. The individual can then make a choice to leave behind a faith that hurts others, reform things, or whatever.
Individuals are part of groups, but the group itself is based on the majority. One or two Catholic priests doing molestation, are bad apples. The scripture does not condone that. Alot of them do it, you don't shut down Christianity, but you do ask that someone figure out the cause and address that (the cause is the chastity pledges).
In terms of being on to something, I call BS. Where were atheists during the Holocaust? Helping Jews survive?
There is no "Mormon version" of the Bible. We use the KJV.
okay, maybe we can clear something up, the King James Version of the Christian sacred book and the book of Mormon are two separate books, are they not? If that's the case then the Book of Mormon is a version of the Christian sacred book with one less book then the King James Version.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but the "Mormon Bible" is called "The Bible."
