Obama meets with top Mormon leader

The Mormon Church runs their genealogical program to trace back the family members of current members to posthumously baptize them into the church, especially those who lived before they established their religion in 1830. This leads them into branches of the family that never ended up as members, but that doesn't seem to matter to them. It is important that before you die, you should make it a part of the public record that you do not want to be included in this bizarre program after you die, or you just may end up as listed as a member of this strange cult/religion.

In response to David Long...

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 2001, I can verify that we do perform baptisms on behalf of those who have passed away, but it is not as strange as you think.

We believe that all people should have the chance to be baptized, but not everyone gets this chance on earth. Have you ever wondered what happens to people who have never heard of Jesus Christ in their entire life? After they die, do they go straight to hell. No. That would be ridiculously unfair. Instead, others who are still living are baptized on their behalf and they have the chance to accept Jesus as their Savior, even though they may not have had religion while still alive.

The apostle Paul actually mentions baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15. It was common during Jesus Christ's time on earth, and it is common today in His Church.

And if you're still not interested in being included in the religion, the deceased persons have the choice to accept the baptism done on their behalf or to reject it. So don't worry.

SaraCW - Somehow your explanation is just as bizarre as my understanding was. How do the dead have the option of not accepting baptism, THEY ARE DEAD? Lastly, in as much as no one has died, gone to heaven and come back to tell us all about the eternal Disneyland, how do you even know it exists, considering that gods are fictitious inventions of man?

This business about performing genealogies as an aspect of the Mormon faith was new information for me and very interesting. I'd be curious to know about their methodology.

www.bahaithought.com

While I do not find the theology of LDS attractive, I find the sober, clean cut, cheerful, large family, anti abortion, politically conservative lifestyles of most members admirable. Sadly, most of those adjectives would have described my fellow Catholics in the 1950's, before a large portion of our church became the praying wing of the McGovern liberals and indistinuishable from our decadent culture. Mitt Romney would have made a much better candidate than John McCain, and would have much more prior economic experience than the incumbent.

The LDS Church led the fight against racial integration and was the last major denomination to explicitly ban blacks from membership until threatened with a tax suit in 1978. Since then the Mormon church has shifted targets: they now hate gays more than they hate blacks. The LDS provides over 80% of the funding and most of the volunteers for anti-gay campaigns in California and elsewhere.

Now that Obama has met with religious fanatics from Utah, he is more prepared for his promised meetings with Iranian and Afghan leaders. There really isn't much of a difference between the values of Islamic extremists and the vaues of the Mormon church.

Alex
The LDS may have been late to racial integration, but at least they are now. LDS does not "hate gays." They do not approve of same sex marriage. Are you the dictator of who can hold which political opinions? We religious conservatives 'hate the sin/bad policy' [in this case, gay marriage] but we do not hate the 'sininer' [which we all are], in this case, the individual homosexual.

Libs love to lump conservative Mormons, Evangelicals and Catholics in with radical jihadist, sharia Muslims, but this is ludicrous. A theocrat is one who wants the rule of clergy, but no one in the US wants this, so you have employed a straw man argument. What conservatives want is a return to the Judaeo-Christian values on which this country was founded. 2 examples which were not in the Constitution are abortion and same sex marriage. And don't both to say that slavery was permitted in the Consitution. We believe in the Constitution as properly amended, as in equality for blacks and women. We don't believe in amending through either judicial, legislative, or executive fiat. Same sex marriage would be a radical change, so if you want it, go through the arduous amendment process.

"The LDS provides over 80% of the funding and most of the volunteers for anti-gay campaigns in California and elsewhere."

The gay lobby/ideology/'church provided 80% of the funding and most of the volunteers for the wreck-traditional-marriage campaign in Cal. and elsewhere.

gaudete - Are these the same Judeo-Christian values that were used to justify the genocide committed against our native populations during our formative years? If they are , then it is time to chuck the whole superstitiously derived pile of crap and put religion back on the tax rolls. Religion is rubbish, unless you can cough up this god creature (in a provable, verifiable way) and prove that your prejudices are part of the nature of this beast. Until you can perform this task, I'll settle for The Constitution representing the promise of freedom to the greatest number of people, which may disappoint you, as many of those aren't Lilly white and are gay.

you expose your reasoning that homosexuality is a sin. Marriage is not the problem, the problem is that you feel that it is a sin to be born gay.

Actually gaudete, they do seem to "hate gays." When Utah's Gov. Huntsman tried to pass basic domestic partnership rights in Utah, the church's stance shifted from "we want to protect the sanctity of marriage" to "gays are abomination." Look it up, actions speak far louder than words.

Bottom line, the LDS is a cult. It was founded by a proven, serial pedophile and con-man.

"LDS does not "hate gays." They do not approve of same sex marriage. Are you the dictator of who can hold which political opinions?"

Your supposed "political" opinion is nothing but a religious-based bias masquerading as a political opinion. Please, we have a LONG tradition of separation of church & state here.

"We religious conservatives 'hate the sin/bad policy' [in this case, gay marriage] but we do not hate the 'sininer'"

Well YOU said it. You're a "religious" conservative, and that's fine. Be conservatively religious but keep it out of politics. It's like saying you don't hate swimming, only the swimmer.

I am a Catholic. i can see now that no matter what religion you belong to ,the people of Boston are ready to eat it up. It is one thing to discuss the religion and its beliefs and another to make fun of it. People are hurt so please try to act like intellegent people. >We can do better to make this a better world even thought we have big problems. pray for us.

"What conservatives want is a return to the Judaeo-Christian values on which this country was founded."
Is that right? The "foundation" of this nation is the constitution. As I was taught, it was written and ratified by rich White men, who saw fit to purposely separate church from the state. Oh, I'm sorry, I think you're talking about the COLONIES? Well, you don't need to delve too far into history to find that the majority of colonists didn't come here to practice their religion freely. The colonies, from the start, were economic ventures: I.E. CORPORATIONS, designed to make a profit for their investors. The religious fanatics, despite being the minority in these ventures, often ended up in control of established settlements, but by far the majority of colonists came her as "adventurers" to seek their fortune, whatever that may or may not have been.
Now, as far as the constitution goes, I'm sure that you know (well, given your remarks, possibly not) that no one in the late 18th century could have envisioned
what would be 200+ years later.

"We don't believe in amending through either judicial, legislative, or executive fiat."
Unless, of course, you agree with said fiat?

"wreck-traditional-marriage campaign"

Hmm, this is about as absurd as someone in a deli "wrecking a traditional sandwich." No one, including you, has yet to provide any evidence that gay marriage "wrecks" anything other than your perception of what "is" traditional (and by the way, traditions change over time, such as marriage becoming the sanction of religious bodies). You're merely trying to insist that something you disagree with (for whatever reason, but here it's obviously religious reasons) should not be given equal status. So go ahead and continue to make your traditional sandwiches. When someone makes one in a way you may disagree with, it does NOTHING to diminish yours. Yours will still taste the same.

I did learn yesterday that someone was kind enough to "baptize" Barack Obama's mother last year, when she was dead and in no position to express her opinion one way or another. Have they also involuntarily "baptized" his father and grandmother? If so, did President Monson tell the President?

It is remarkable how many people who call themselves "conservatives" seem never to have read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights. They certainly utterly reject them. And it is remarkable how many of the people who call themselves "conservatives" also seem to be members of pretty authoritarian religious groups.

David - all you have done is trash belief in God and organized religion. Can you acknowledge the tremendous acts of charity and other contributions to western civilization that the Church has instituted?

The Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, is responsible for the university system in the world, the justice system and scores of other things that make up the character of this country. Will you acknowledge that?

The LDS Church certainly has its issues as any, but defense of it, it is front and center on family, hard work, morality and charity - particularly taking care of its own who have stumbled. They are for the most part, model citizens, as is demanded by their credo. We Catholics can learn much from them about honoring family, hard work and all those things, as Gaudete stated, was once a staple of Catholic culture and life. The cancer of the woodstock generation in the Church has been
disgraceful, whose poster children have surnames of Pelosi, Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy, Harkin, and others.

JV - your statement is ignorant., It is not a sin to be gay. It is not a sin to be heterosexual. It is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. People act like this is news... its been around since King David.

i was baptized already in the name of JC. I do not wish to be part of any after life ceremony. thank-you, rw.

KJR - I respectfully decline the invitation to join your hallucination. I have also figured out why the poster you warned me about when I first entered this Blog acts with so much hostility toward you, you earned it. There is nothing more intractable than a fanatic Right-wing Cathoholic, who does not know the rules of logic and spews dogma while standing on a pile of manure.

"It is not a sin to be gay. It is not a sin to be heterosexual. It is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. People act like this is news... its been around since King David."

And before King David (I'm sure there were people around before him, right?) was it or was it not a "sin?"

First of all, why does LDS (hmm...very close to the acronym LSD) get to be forerunner for "family, hard work, morality and charity" ? You do not have to belong to a religion to live a good life and value those things. I think it is safe to say that everyone values family, hard work, morality, and charity. Why does no sex before marriage=morailty? Because your religion told you. The first definition of "moral" from dictionary.com : "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical" Sex is not wrong, regardless of marital status. Please keep your religion out of government.

Just because this country was founded with certain ideals, does not make them right. Americans also had slaves back then, is that right? Should we bring back slavery because it helped to build our country? Someone said that it was rightfully amended for blacks and women. Why are gays not deserving of the same rights? Again, your ideas of "proper" marriage stem from religion. SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE!!!

#12, are we hurting your feelings? I am not making fun, I am asking questions and contributing facts. Sorry your religion is based on others' ignorant and foolish ideas that you so blindly follow because you believe it will get you into heaven. Why not follow everyone in such a manner? If "God" told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

Heck yeah David.

KJR

In other words David won't admit anyone associated with any religion has done any good. He ignored the same subject from me. He is obviously an intelligent man in some areas and therefore knows every organization from the beginning of time through now has had individuals who have misunderstood their organization and/or done wrong in the name of that organization. He knows that the good the Catholic Church has done far outweighs any wrongs done by those in the Church but he is unwilling to say so. He wouldn’t even admit that those most in need would be in much direr straights if it was not for all the time, treasure, and talent of those directly associated with the Catholic Church.

I have still enjoyed speaking with him however as he like others has given knowledgeable Catholics the opportunity to speak the truth of the Church in reply to his misunderstanding of the Church.

To some degree he is morphing in to an Atheist version of ontheleft with his Right-wing Catholic line. Once again confused believing the Church is a political organization. And speaking of ontheleft, I haven’t seen him around for a while since he refused to answer the question someone posed to him about his abortion views because he would have been forced to contradict himself.

Bottom line is I’d have nothing to write if these guys weren’t constantly misinterpreting what the Catholic Church and Christians truly stand for. Or maybe I’m really not joyful and content but actually delusional

The Mormon church was conceived by a polygamist lunatic who managed to convince his followers that he alone held the key to a new prophesy. It just so happened that he saw immense personal benefit from this prophesy, including, of course, his acquisition of dozens of wives.

LDS then moved west, forming a powerful militia which slaughtered many native americans at Mountain Meadows before eventually receiving their statehood in exchange for a promise to abstain from one of the church's central tenets, polygamy.

The Church later on became a prominent foe of Civil rights and mixed marriage until they belatedly retreated from their position when it became politically untenable, just as they had previously done regarding polygamy.

We can only hope that in the coming years anti-gay bigotry will become less acceptable, perhaps leading to LDS making yet another about face.

Henway - What color is the sky on YOUR planet. Perhaps the next time someone talks in a disparaging way about Adolf Hitler, we should all point out how he dragged Germany from the depths of despair, put everyone back to work, built the Autobahn and united the German people behind a unifying theme? I don't think so, and the evil done in the name of gods should not excuse religions for the evil they do and have done in the name of their deities.

My favorite story about the loving nature of your church is about the French city of Beziers that was a hot-bed of protestant heathenism. The Pope dispatched a Papal army to seize the city and punish the heretics (by killing them). Once the city had been surrounded, the General at the head of the army asked the Cardinal in charge how he was to differentiate the heathens from the true believers, and the cardinal replied, "Kill them all, God can sort them out later.", and they did. If you search Church records, you will find that 6000 were butchered, but sources outside the Church have put the figure somewhere around 60,000. I'm sure the true number lies somewhere in between, but still shows that all that is religion is not necessarily pure as the driven snow.

Good observation Henway.. David Long came out originally trying so sound even keel, and I enjoyed chatting with him, but when pressed, he devolves, like most libs into hate speech. His true colors come out. My question was very simple, and he turned into a maniacal blowhard who can't acknowledge what most of the world, even secular world, acknowledges about the enormously good things the Church has done over the centuries. That was the only topic of my post to him. He turns into name calling. It is really pretty sad.

So the Church is as bad as Nazi Germany. What planet are you on?

KJR - Nice try, I was all for having a productive discussion until you, like a broken record, kept insisting I do the impossible by proving a negative assertion, which I pointed out (and which could be confirmed as valid) is a logical impossibility. I even painted a picture for you so you would be able to understand the principle, but you, like an idiot pounding their head against the wall, just kept insisting I do something that even a college freshman in the first day of a logic course knows can't be done. If you are going to be dishonest (something I insist on, not only for you, but also for myself), then there is little point in maintaining a thin veneer of respectful attitude for one who does not respect the basic rules of logic.

Once you have crossed that line, it becomes little more than like trying to play chess with a pigeon. You knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and then fly home to your flock to declare victory.

Some of the great things that Catholic Church has done over the ages:
The Inquisition
The Crusades
The conversion of Native Americans through torture
The complicit genocide of millions in Africa by refusing to sanction condoms as protection against AIDS
The cover-up of rape of young boys
Casting a blind eye to the holocaust
That took 10 seconds, imagine if we really applied ourselves. Thanks for all the good work guys, keep it up!

David - you made my point. You cannot prove the negative which you so boldly proclaim as FACT. You come on this board and insult people of faith as stupid, ignorant fools and when pressed to show your logical failings based on your statement of FACT, you devolve into the typical flame-throwing liberal. Believing is a matter of faith AND reason. Christians admit that. You dismiss us as lunatics. That is the absurdity of your entire series of posts, cutting, hacking and thrashing any semblance of intelligentsia that may contradict your proclamations of absolute truth. Your depth (or lack thereof) is exposed. When confronted or frustrated - be disrespectful, as you now admit. Do you now get the point?

David Long,
Your posts were originally very interesting to read. You seem to use sound logic and a rational approach. Religion however, does not always lend itself to the "scientific" approach and relies a lot on faith. Faith can not be measured in a laboratory and studied. You do not concede anywhere in your writing that religion can serve an important function in society. Mormonism, as one pointed out, has it's share of problems. The practitioners of the religion do appear to be model citizens and cause no harm to you even if their beliefs appear to be far fetched (e.g. gold tablets). People like to be able to believe in a higher purpose and think that their lives have meaning with the possibility of an afterlife. You do not believe this nor do you have faith. That's ok. You seek answers, but readily admit you're still learning and do not have any. Some people feel (some more strongly than others) they have answers nicely addressed by their religion. This country has freedom of religion or freedom to have no religion. How come your posts are becoming so argumentative? Why do you try to argue the unarguable? Like George Michael said, you gotta have faith. It would be nice if you could see the other side of your argument from the perspective of someone that practices any religion. This is an "Articles of Faith" blog after all.

Respectfully

Faith is exactly what David Koresh's followers had, Charles Manson's followers had, as did every cult in history. Faith is what drove the horrific events that I listed above. Faith is just a convenient excuse to avoid the reality in front of you and to subvert logic. I imagine when an Ostrich sticks it's head in a hole, he would argue that he has "faith."

KJR - You are not going to win an argument where you tout as truth something that has no basis in fact. Requiring that somebody disprove something that has no basis in fact is illogical and just plain stupid. I can argue my case within the framework of logic, but if you insist on skipping through the discussion sprinkling fairy-dust and expecting me to somehow see your point, then you are clearly nuts.

Eric - All religious arguments devolve to the term "Faith", which is nothing but an excuse to believe something that in the real world cannot possibly be shown to be true. Faith is the excuse for ignorance, plain and simple. As far as the Mormon Cult causing harm, just wait until they get into positions of power, where they can implement some of their doctrinaire beliefs and force them on the rest of us. I would no more want them controlling society than I would the stinking fascist Moonie Cult that is now buying up the Republican Party. We have separation of church and state for very good and sound reasons and it is in the vested interests of our society that people who do not see the good in that requirement of governance be kept from exercising control.

David,

I’m sure you can do better then that incredibly unoriginal “color of the sky” comment to insult me. I’m sure just as you feel that I and other believers feel life with God for eternity is like Disneyworld you believe the sky in my world contains tangerine trees and marmalade.

Let’s try this nice and slow like with ontheleft. First carefully read what I’m saying. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY WRONGS COMMITTED BY THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION IN THE HISTORY FO THE WORLD. ALL THESE WRONGS WENT AGAINST WHAT THE CHURCH TRULY STANDS FOR. THOSE OF US 100% ON BOARD PRACTICING CATHOLICS BELIEVE ALL INVOLVED WITH THESE WRONGS SHOULD BE PUNISHED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW AND WILL BE JUDGED BY GOD.

Here are a couple questions for you. PLEASE TRY AND ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT ASKING OTHER QUESTIONS OR AVOIDING THE QUESTION. I’m not asking you to admit that everything about Religion and the Catholic Church is wonderful remember as you’ve made how you feel quite clear by now. OK, ready?

DO YOU BELIEVE ANYONE WHO GLADLY STATES THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES ANY GOOD IN THE WORLD?

DO YOU BELIEVE THE INCREDIBLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, TIME, AND TALENT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES THE DESTITUTE WOULD BE MISSED IF THE MINISTRY WORK THEY DO THROUGHOUT THE WORLD CEASED?

Now excuse me as I'm off to be waterboarded while listening to statements such as "God is real and the Catholic Church is the True Church and no person ever calling themselves a Christian has ever done anything wrong" over and over again.

God (or big bang theory if it makes you feel better) Bless

Libs love to profess how open minded they are.

Exhibit A: "gaudete - Are these the same Judeo-Christian values that were used to justify the genocide committed against our native populations during our formative years? If they are , then it is time to chuck the whole superstitiously derived pile of crap and put religion back on the tax rolls. Religion is rubbish, unless you can cough up this god creature (in a provable, verifiable way...
posted by David Long

David Long wrote:

"gaudete - Are these the same Judeo-Christian values that were used to justify the genocide committed against our native populations during our formative years?"

David, check your (il)logic. Just because X actions [and yes, there were some atrocities committed against the native Americans, as they also committed some] by a certain group, that does not mean that every one in that group is bad, or that their religion or other profession is wrong or bad.

How about 'David did X, David is white, ergo all Davids and all whites are bad.?

"LDS does not "hate gays." They do not approve of same sex marriage. Are you the dictator of who can hold which political opinions?"

Your supposed "political" opinion is nothing but a religious-based bias masquerading as a political opinion. Please, we have a LONG tradition of separation of church & state here.

"We religious conservatives 'hate the sin/bad policy' [in this case, gay marriage] but we do not hate the 'sininer'"

Well YOU said it. You're a "religious" conservative, and that's fine. Be conservatively religious but keep it out of politics. It's like saying you don't hate swimming, only the swimmer."

Yes, Padraig, we have "separation of Chruch and state," but all that means is that no one denomination is to be favored over another, and that we will not be ruled by clergypersons (like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson etc.) Separation of church and state does not mean that citizens who also have a religious inclination are not permitted to vote, advocate policies, give money to candidates and causes they agree with, anymore than i would try to ban you from so advocating from an irreligious or anti-religious bias.

And it's not like your swim/swimmer analogy, because swimming does not contradict the natural law.

Padraig wrote: " "What conservatives want is a return to the Judaeo-Christian values on which this country was founded."
Is that right? The "foundation" of this nation is the constitution. As I was taught, it was written and ratified by rich White men, who saw fit to purposely separate church from the state."

Padraig, if you came over from Ireland as an adult, I can understand your being ill-informed abouit US history. You clearly have a love/hate relationship with this country, since first you are proud that it was founded on a Constitution with separation of church and state, but then poke fun because it was written by "rich white men." (Don't forget it was ratified also be middle class men, yes, no women, and yes, no poor folk. But it did contain the seeds for those later developments.)

Again, "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, it was in a private 1803 letter from Jefferson. Do you advocate that phrases from all presidential private letters should be considered part of the Constitution?

And you mendaciouly misquote me, because I had written that the "country" was founded on Judaeo-Christian values, [circa 1620]and your comment switched
to the "nation" being founded on the Constitution [c. 1789] Naughty naughty switch
not a good way to gain credibility for your comments.

Summa baby bumma wrote: "I think it is safe to say that everyone values family, hard work, morality, and charity."

Summa, where do live, Mars? You mean you've never experienced any anti-family spouse cheaters, or lazy folks, or Bernie Madoff immorals, or unloving folks? I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn...

"It is not a sin to be gay. It is not a sin to be heterosexual. It is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. People act like this is news... its been around since King David."

And before King David (I'm sure there were people around before him, right?) was it or was it not a "sin?"

Posted by Padraig

Before there was King David, there were the events narrated in the book of Genesis. There it said God created the human race, male and female he created them, and that Adam and Eve should cleave unto each other. That is the logic God imprinted into the natural law. Homosexual sexual activity is wrong [not homosexual inclination], but whether something is a sin depends on the subjective state of the person's conscience, whether they know it is a sin, whether they engaged in it willingly, etc.

"Faith is exactly what David Koresh's followers had, Charles Manson's followers had, as did every cult in history. Faith is what drove the horrific events that I listed above. Faith is just a convenient excuse to avoid the reality in front of you and to subvert logic. I imagine when an Ostrich sticks it's head in a hole, he would argue that he has "faith."

Posted by Ed Dantes"

Ed, everyone, including you, has faith. Faith in one aspect is the trusting acceptance of information handed down by a trustworthy source. To make a very long story short, Christians have found that the apostles' accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are trustworthy and true, and therefore compelling of belief.

But even agnostics and atheists have faith. Unless you are a speculative physicist, you trust that others have confirmed Einstein's theory of relativity. I trust that, even though i know little of the innards of computer technology, somehow what i am typing will appear on the religion blog. If as i assume you are a liberal, you have faith that Barack Obama will solve all the problems of the world. If you are married, you probably have faith that your spouse has not been cheating on you, even though you haven't been with him/her every second.

The key is not to have uncritical, coerced faith as did the followers of Koresh, Jim Jones etc., so you're lumping of them with the followers of the 'vetted' religions is risible.

gaudete, it seems, is of the opinion that if you fling enough offal at an argument, you can win it on the basis of volume alone, even when he says nothing of value. I will listen to you the moment you cough up one tiny shred of verifiable evidence that a god, or gods, exist, or have ever existed.

Alex,
You are right. Our (LDS) discrimination against Blacks was wrong and grew out of time when racial prejudice was widely accepted. But we shoud have stood up then for the things of God then as we did with prop 8 today. I fully expect gays to stand for gay marriage. That's just reasonable. One should also expect that the people of God, Mormon, other Christians and religions to stand for the things of God, traditional marriage. That's only reasonable. All are allowed to stand for what they believe in and it doesn't amount to hate.

Hey ontheleft I mean David why aren't you answeing my questions?

"Mitt Romney would have made a much better candidate than John McCain, and would have much more prior economic experience than the incumbent."
Posted by gaudete July 21, 09 07:17 AM

Maybe, but he'd have been a lousy president, just as he was a mediocre governor. Romney has little or no apparent compassion. Having been quite well off his entire life, he seems to have little empathy. As for his economic experience, it's largely pro-wealthy, anti-worker, the same sort of thing that has kept working people's wages largely stagnant for 30 years.

"Hey ontheleft I mean David why aren't you answering my questions?"
Posted by Henway July 22, 09 04:03 PM

Sorry, genius, but my name's not David. I don't post under any name but the one you see at the end of this post. But, hey, thanks for playing. And for showing the class your ignorance. In short, Henway, if you're going to spout something as fact, try to make sure there's a factual basis for it.

First of all, I'm not "ontheleft", though I'm starting to have a bit of admiration for him considering the boneheadedness I've found here. Second, your questions are self serving attempts to deflect from the truth of my argument with mindless externalities and I will not let you lead me in that direction. What, you think your the first intractable fanatic religionist I've ever sparred with? I'd be more than happy to take what you say seriously once you provide the proof necessary to validate your god creatures, and if better be, stand up to the measure of proof, validation.

Henway... as irritating as ontheleft is, at least he acknowledges that God exists, and I believe, even calls himself a Christian. David Long cites Marx and Ayn Rand as his inspiration... and calls anyone who believes in God, I suppose those including ontheleft, people who believe in "fairy tale dust...".

KJR - Can't win the argument so its time to disparage your opponent? You are getting more pathetic by the moment. I guess I'm just lucky the rise of secular governments (in the West, at least) doesn't allow religion to kill us heathens anymore. And I do not acknowledge things that are not proven true, so you can hang that out to dry.

I'm sorry David, that is for the board to judge. My position is a matter of faith and reason. You stated yours as a matter of fact, and your fact is this: That God does not exist. Yet, you cannot prove that, as you stated, since one cannot prove a negative. Yet, you have left open every possibility about why life began and why it exists with its complexity, by the cop out of we don't know - YET. In giving yourself that wiggle room, you categorically eliminate one possibility, that of a higher power, which directly undermines your premise and answer to the issue. Who is irrational? If you were honest, God would be part of the "we don't know - YET", which would be totally consistent with your thesis. But you eliminate that, and in my view, undermines your entire argument. So what is left for you? What else -
you change the subject and focus on the messenger rather than the message.

I'm going to jump in here, because KJR claims that his position is "a matter of faith and reason". Which is funny, because the concepts of faith and reason completely contradict each other. How can you have both?
In addition, let me give an example about David's reference to not knowing. We didn't know what lightning was or where it came from until as recently as the late 1700s. Was it Zeus throwing bolts? Were the gods angry and punishing us? No, charged ions in the atmosphere creating electricity. A totally rational, scientific explanation. Nothing supernatural, we just didn't know at the time. There is no "why" life began, it just did. There doesn't HAVE to be a why, it just is. You can't apply probabillity to a past event by saying that it's too improbable to happen, as you keep doing, KJR, because it DID happen, therefore it has a probability of 1.0. It exists with complexity because of evolution and natural selection, which are testable and proven theories. There is no reason or need for a god to have any part of ANY of this.

David and ontheleft,

I know you are two different men my point is neither one of you answered questions that where posed to you. You are similar to some degree in that often instead of answering you lash out.

I just recently asked David two questions which he refuses to answer. Once again he deflects and acts as if I'm not answering his questions. David flat out refuses to answer the questions because he is unwilling to admit ANYTHING good ever came from organized religion.

I don't remember exactly what the questions asked of ontheleft posed by another poster where but it had something to do with abortion and he NEVER answered.

I regret if I offended either one of you as like I've said before if it wasn't for you two I wouldn't have anything to write in these blogs. I especially enjoy when Catholics posting here provide the correct teaching of the Catholic Church when you unintentionally make incorrect statements/assumptions about her.

I love you guys and pray for you often.

kellmoops - Thank you for the assist, but I doubt that it will have any impact on someone who ascribes so much of our existence on a long shot that is so far out on the probability line as to be ridiculous. The ridiculous should always be held in low regard, unless there is compelling evidence that it is not ridiculous, rendering it, at the point, as no longer ridiculous. God/gods have yet to cross that threshold, yet so many still hang their existence on such a flimsy hook because it is such a simple and easy crutch to lean on, if one is gullible enough.

kellmoops, go and read John Paul II's "Fides et Ratio", and you may learn something. That will answer your question.

Henway - No one is arguing that your church, or any church, hasn't done "good works" on some level, or that at times they could have done more (like speaking out more forcefully for the Jews, during the Holocaust), but that doesn't mitigate all the evil done by religions in the name of their chosen deities. That you wish to turn the spotlight away from the argument by introducing this tangent is understandable, considering that your other arguments are so inherently weak. It is a common tactic when you are left with nothing else.

David, I have cited Penrose, a world renowned mathematician and scientist, who believes that there is not more than 1 x 10 to the 10123rd power that there is no God in some form. What are your credentials that would suggest otherwise rather than a lay opinion?

My question is simple, what qualifies you to make your claim with such certainty?

KJR - Easy answer, because I know how fond you are of simple easy answers. There is not now, nor has there EVER been the tiniest shred of verifiable evidence that a god (or gods) exist, or that they have EVER existed. Now, in the face of that, perhaps you can explain to us why you do believe such a creature (or creatures) does exist and why you believe we should all share your hallucination.

KJR, I've read it. It's definitely a poetic piece of work. In fact, I admire John Paul II quite a bit. He seems like he was a good man. That being said...does that make what he claims, or for that matter any religious text, true? No. Just because someone says it, doesn't make it true. You can't tell me that you honestly (deep down) believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib, as the Bible claims. If that were true, where did the X chromosome come from, since men have a Y? And if that story is not true, how can anything else in there be claimed as being true? You claim that text will answer my question? It doesn't answer anything, it just makes up magical claims. Science and fact answered my questions a long time ago, and those that are still unanswered, we're working on finding. That's the beauty of it - we can FIND out what actually happened, not just settle for some tall tales that have been told to you to scare you into behaving. And if our current theory is wrong, we accept the new evidence and change based on that. The problem with religion is the lack of flexibility and unwillingness to even consider any other facts.

David, I always feel like I should try to support my fellow Freethinkers. They tend to be sorely under represented in the public domain. And it's always good to see that there are more of us out there, trying to further the cause of science and reason, and even just be heard.....exactly why I became a scientist.

KJR - that is NOT WHAT PENROSE is claiming. He claimed those odds were the odds that the universe would happen as it is randomly. I agree, small odds.
Again, you can't apply probability to something that's ALREADY HAPPENED, because the odds of it happening are 1 to 1 - since it ALREADY HAPPENED.
Try telling someone that won the lottery that they didn't just win it, because the odds are too small for them to have won!!

David my friend,

I'm proud of you. As far as the Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations I feel the good that has been done far outweighs the bad that his been done by those who though in name where associated with the Church certainly weren't following what the Church taught or stands for.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying my argument is weak? It is impossible for me to show you that God is real. Only He can change hearts. I have been blessed however that He has given me the humbling experience of being part of bringing others closer to Him.

I don’t really look at it as an argument. I know Jesus, you believe I’m delusional. You aren’t willing to ask God through prayer to reveal Himself to you. That doesn’t mean He won’t but it will either take a miracle or you’re eventually opening your heart. I totally understand you need absolute proof. You can’t understand why some of us have strong faith because you have never made an effort to know Jesus. It’s Ok for you to feel we are delusional but unless you give it the proverbial old college try you can’t really say we are definitely wrong either.

If you are right I will die and that will be the end. I am POSITIVE death is not the end and even so I love my life and am joyful and content or in your mind delusional. Bottom line is even though you don’t believe I’m truly happy I feel happy. Also although I don’t serve in the ministry I do for rewards, I have received many.

If I am right you will die and be judged at some point. As I do for everyone I pray that Jesus will come to you upon your death and will ask you to accept Him as Lord. I pray you do and that you eventually end up in paradise for all eternity.

Love ya man

KJR - I'm afraid that my response , which was lengthy and detailed, to your last post, came up with a big transmission error notice and when I attempted to save it, the computer froze and I had to reboot, which sent it to the void. After muttering a few choice variations of various religion's gods (with interesting middle names inserted), I took some time away from the key-board.

In a nut-shell, my argument involved not EVER finding any verifiable proof that a god, or gods, exists, or has EVER existed. This information came to me the hard way, by actually looking for it, which is far more that is done by people who go looking for a god they always seem to find because it is what they expect to find. I went at it with an open mind, and by open, I mean open to what could be substantiated by proof. Your god (and ALL the others) fell short of the necessary requirements to be taken seriously. What were my qualifications? An open mind and a template against which all information had to be held. Superstition and delusion ended up with no place where they could fit into a rational framework and satisfy the requirements of logic, no matter how much it was twisted and bent.

Wish my first effort had survived, it was a slap down goody.

Gaudette, you conveniently jump between different connotations of the word “faith.” Faith absolutely can be synonymous with “trust” when used in the sense of, “I have faith my spouse has not been cheating on me.” But, unless you are naïve, you know that the definition of religious “faith”, while potentially inclusive of trust, extends far beyond simple “trust” to unwavering acceptance without evidence. This is where the link to Koresh, Jones and other fanatics, while maybe risible to you, is tragically on the mark to many of us. To highlight the distinction, if I find evidence that suggests my spouse’s infidelities, I will not blindly assume my spouse is innocent of cheating, but rather will investigate or take action. In contrast, when religious zealots repeatedly find evidence that their religion is flawed or wrong, they refuse to acknowledge it. Or worse yet, when their religion “tells” them to kill, torture, perpetrate hatred towards gays, etc, they blindly follow. To make a long story short, scholars have “vetted” the many inconsistencies and fictitious elements of the bible that you claim are “trustworthy and true, and therefore compelling of belief.” Even the church acknowledges the bible is meant to be allegorical, not hard fact. Furthermore, history has shown the many mistakes, faults and even crimes of the church as an organization. And yet, you find it appropriate not to question the church or your faith. That sounds a whole lot like a Koresh follower to me.
B.t.w. your silence on my previous post regarding Joseph Smith is notable. For me, it is an interesting study of your faith. Does the end of religious conservatism displayed by Mormons justify the means of pedophilia and oppression practiced by their founders in building the religion? Do tell…

KJR
One comment you have made repeatedly...
actually, I should backtrack because I got lost in reality and failed to respond to a comment you made responding to me on another thread somewhere... I do agree that you and gaudete have been consistent in condemning those who perpetrated and enabled the sexual abuse of children by the priests and the hierarchy, which blame, I believe, goes all the way to the Papacy. Despite my comments I will not criticize you on your positions on that topic, though that is the only place you have been willing to be criticial of the RCC.
I do not have time to fully comment here, now, but above and previously you have noted that believing (as in religion) is a matter of faith and reason. I cannot, however, see religion as being more than faith, which to me is, by definition, not the use of reason, since reason relies on things like facts, while faith is the belief in that which cannot be proven. Since religions are based on and defense of which always falls back to “it’s about faith,” I do not believe reason is a part of faith or religion. The modern religions are simply cults that went mainstream. They are case studies in brainwashing (what do you think the rosary is?) and marketing, as well as exercises in fear and intimidation. Sadly, too many people do not question or fall back to the comfort of a belief in an all-knowing all-powerful deity who is imaginary, petty, vicious and bi-polar, all characteristics backed up with Biblical examples.
Though you and I agree on very little, KJR, and gaudete, I do want you to know that I respect your minds and the discussions we have, even when you are wrong *grins*.

Appreciate your comments, Kai, and am compelled to comment about one of the things your mentioned: The Rosary.

The Rosary is not brainwashing, it is a methodical and deeply contemplative "prayer" which is designed to call the person to think about various aspects of scripture. The mysteries of the Rosary call us to think about life of Jesus, and different lights: Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious and recently, Luminous Mysteries. Rosary is Latin for "rose garden".. Many people have difficulty with spontaneous prayer (simply conversation with God), so formalized prayer is helpful, and the Rosary is really a wonderful way to quiet one's mind and come into the prayerful presence of God while contemplating the mysteries of Christ's life.

You may not believe this Kai, but we probably agree on more than you think.

Peace.

The Rosary is a repetitious recitation that most Catholics race through as fast as they can without thinking about what they are saying, getting it out of the way much the way Tibetans pray when the spin their prayer wheels. I once followed a woman who pulled out ahead of me from a Catholic church and couldn't figure out why she was traveling so slow and making all kinds of hand motions while driving in traffic, until I was able to pull up next to her at a light. Evidently, she was trying to knock off her "Hail Marys" on the way home from confession. Had she caused an accident and killed or injured someone during that exercise, she would have really had something to confess the next time.

Maybe this is petty of me, but isn't it a little hypocritical to be demanding absolute, solid proof that God exists, but at the same time claiming there is absolute, solid proof that Joseph Smith was a pedophile, con man, etc? What absolute, solid proof is there of either? Someone said so? I find it interesting that you're so quick to accept one but not the other. I have actually researched the so-called "proof" on Smith, and have been unable to find anything conclusively proving he was any of those things. I've found plenty of accusations, but no actual proof. Yes, he married multiple women. I don't think anyone disputes he was polygamous, but those women were of normal and legal age for marriage in this country at that time. It's not like they were 6, they were over 14, most were over 18, and that was actually a common age for marriage at the time.
As for being a con man, that seems to be an opinion, not a fact. Can you point to a single conviction, or are you basing this on the many accusations made by people who were known to be openly hostile toward the church and its leaders?
Funny thing about this country--you actually have to have evidence of a crime in order to convict someone of it. I haven't yet found any that Smith was ever convicted.
That's obviously completely separate from the concept of him being a prophet--because you don't believe in God and therefore argument about someone being a prophet would be meaningless.
It just seems interesting to me that you completely accept as proof the opinions of a man's enemies while demanding absolute proof of the existance of God.
Double standard, much?
In both instances, (Smith's accusations and God being real) the only evidence is derived from written statements from people who are dead and cannot actually testify as witnesses.
I'm not telling you to believe in God. I'm not telling you to convert to Mormonism. It just seems a little extreme that based off an article about a church doing research on the President's genealogical history and presenting it to him as a gift, no strings attached, that you would say such hateful things. What did God or the Mormons (or the Catholics, for that matter) ever do to you?

Julianna - All religion is a fraud, by definition, which would make the founders of such a fraud themselves lying, cheating frauds. To suspect that they are any more ethical than the recently caught and imprisoned head of one of the splinter Mormon cultist sects (Jeffers, or Jeffords I recall vaguely) who practiced a form of Mormonism more in line with that of Joseph Smith (right down to the messianic complex), would not be logical.

That the Mormon cult practices a bizarre form of baptism of the dead to include them in some sort of eternal delusional fraud, is the reason why I have instructed my survivors to have a notation attached to my death certificate stating that I am not to be posthumously inducted into any stinking religion.

Julianna,
In your research, perhaps you've come across the names of Helen Mar Kimball or Nancy Winchester who, according to Mormon historians, both married Joseph Smith when they were 14 years old. Or perhaps you might look up the trial or 1826 of Joseph Smith for his conning of people by looking for treasure through a stone. Interestingly, it is similar con as he pulled with the stones that only he could read to transcribe the book of Mormon. If you want to be philosophical and debate how we really "know anything," go ahead but don't waste my time with that crap. The preponderance of evidence is that 1.) Joseph Smith had relations with underage girls 2.) Joseph smith repeatedly tried to con people.
I DO believe in god. I DON'T believe in cults. Perhaps you believe as the Joseph Smith preached that blacks received their dark skin as punishment from God. Or, maybe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri. Or, do you believe that the only way for a woman to get into heaven is for her husband to call her?
To answer your questions about Mormons: I have personally found them to be a group that has a history of discrimination against blacks, gays, women and non-mormons in general. Furthemore, they have an history and agenda of fighting for legislation that tries to force their beliefs on others.
With regards to Catholics, they have been instrumental of some of the greatest atrocities in history (see post above). Think they've changed? They continue today with their spiteful adherence to church rules in areas like contraception. This has greatly contributed to the spread of AIDS in Africa, a crime that is tantamount to genocide. Or perhaps you might look closer to home and see the cover up of the altar boy abuse. How many atrocities do they have to commit before you have your evidence?
But, using your standard of "what did (fill in the blank) ever do to you?" Maybe I should start cutting the KKK a break. After all, they never did anything to me?
Ed

Poor David Long. He is lonely here and will be lonely there, but oh what a surprise he will find when he dies. You better work on your attitude buddy, because it'll be the same there. Hopefully you'll feel a little bit more love there too because tho you sound smart enough, you don't sound like you're loved enough. I'm sorry you feel so powerless. How could you be forced to join a religion when you don't believe in any which is something you already stated again and again. I do not understand your fear, but it is definitely there. Maybe you should try some religion because after all, the opposite of fear is faith.

Until people really want to learn about a religion fully, it is pathetic that they would say nasty things about it. IGNORANCE. HATRED. PREJUDICE.

The far right (i.e. Neo-Nazis) and the far left (i.e. atheists) aren't really that different. They just hate different groups of people.

David,
I always find it completely amazing that a species (humans) who have yet to even make it to another planet in their own solar system, let alone to another star, etc. feel qualified to make the blanket statement that God doesn't exist. Provide me with one shred of evidence that this is true, please. Have you personally visited the trillions of planets in our universe and personally verified the lack of a God on each and every one of them? No? Then, please shut up about a subject about which you're unqualified to draw definite conclusions.

If you define the term God rather losely in terms of
1. A being(s) possessing superior knowledge (technology?) to that of our civilization
2. A being(s) possessing superior moral character to that of our civilzation
3. A being(s) willing and able to intervene in the course of our civilization for good
it seems almost impossible that, in the vast expanses of the universe, there is not a being or civilization not fitting that description. I can say, based off the logic of that argument alone, with near 100% certainty, that a God(s) exist. From there, the Judeo/Christian manifestations of God aren't really much of a stretch -- any more than a airplane or a cell phone would be to someone in the middle ages.

So, please, leave religion alone. If you don't want to believe in it, that's your choice. But, the existence of a God is possible, logical, and very, very likely -- unless humans turn out to be the highest form of life in the universe.