Went through the Temple last week...

[_Ray A]

NOMA is, however, a Trojan horse. Once accepted at face value, a LDS (or other Christian) must cede virtually all of his core religious conceptions to science. This is because Gould was very clear that the scope of empirical science is all of reality, leaving to religion nothing more than ethics and values.

This is wise, as science cannot provide values. However, the Restored Gospel is hardly limited to prescriptions regarding ethics and values. It is about teleology. It is about creation. It is about ontology. It is about the origin, nature, and destiny of mankind. It is about the meaning of the universe and our relationship to it. It is about eternal progression, the purpose of mortality, and about becoming like God. It is about the plan of salvation of which evolution is a part (science tells us that evolution occurred and, to a greater or lesser degree at a surface level, how it occurred. The Gospel will ultimately tell us why it occurred and how the principles of evolution were organized and structured to produce the conditions and outcomes desired, and for what purpose).

That hamburger must be worth at least $15.

[_Ray A]

I see no problem with the Garden of Eden being in Missouri. Where would you like it to be?

It's not a question of where I'd "like it to be". It is where is has always been - among the world's religious mythology.

Just ask Brigham Young.

[_Droopy]

I'll tell you, furthermore, what I think about all this. I think some aspects of Mormon doctrine are so absurd that no rational thinking person can ever believe it. But I think Mormons "hang on" because of two things:

1. The need for certainty.

2. The need for a moral theology to keep their moral compass working.

The quest for certainty in matters of the meaning and purpose of existence date back to the earliest religious and philosophical systems of humankind. Sorry to see you recuse yourself from 6,000 years of recorded human history Ray.

Number two is just unintelligible. All of us need a body of belief regarding morality, not to keep it working so much as to ground it in a body of assumptions and core premises.

They can't conceive of being "moral, charitable, just", unless there's some kind of eternal reward for all this work. There has to be something in it for them. Without this theology and its rewards for righteousness, it would not be worth it. In the end, it's just plain selfishness and vainglory, and the judgements made of others verify that. You can tolerate and apologise for the abuses of plural marriage, but you can't tolerate two people of the same sex in love. So that's where the "moral compass" takes on religious judgements.

Your fevered preoccupation with homosexuality is beginning to wear eggshell thing Ray. Please don't ever tell me or bc or anyone else here ever again that we do not understand LDS doctrine and that we are inauthentic Latter Day Saints. Your cynical moral pomposity has now become all but insufferable.

And that's why I'm fast concluding that religion is a crock of self-aggrandising s***.

Your charity is empty, and your religious pretensions vain.

Ahh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth has already begun. More to come, no doubt.

[_Droopy]

Ray, you have clearly lost the ability to debate rationally, civilly, or in good faith. You have become Mr. Scratch Number two.

Sad to have to see you degenerate over the last year or so into a vulgar, cynical, breast beating Madalyn Murray O' Hairesque atheist.

Sad, but this is what happens...

[_Droopy]

You'd be wise to avail yourself of this standard when speaking to Mormons lest your conversation not make any sense.

Looking over this thread as a whole, I'm afraid it may be a little too late for Ray to take your advice at this point.

[_Ray A]

Ray, you have clearly lost the ability to debate rationally, civilly, or in good faith. You have become Mr. Scratch Number two.

Sad to have to see you degenerate over the last year or so into a vulgar, cynical, breast beating Madalyn Murray O' Hairesque atheist.

Sad, but this is what happens...

Yah, I'm an atheist. Just like Jefferson was.

[_Droopy]

So did Jesus. What do you think of a man who saves an adulterer from stoning, yet calls "religionists" "serpents and vipers"?

He labeled the Jewish priesthood of his day in that manner because they had apostatized from their own scriptures and teachings and corrupted the preparatory Gospel system Moses had given them. It had nothing whatever to do with their being "religionists".

[_Ray A]

He labeled the Jewish priesthood of his day in that manner because they had apostatized from their own scriptures and teachings and corrupted the preparatory Gospel system Moses had given them. It had nothing whatever to do with their being "religionists".

And I'm sure very Jewish Rabbi worth his salt will agree with this. What were you saying about "moral pomposity"?
>
>
>
>

[_Droopy]

No, I am not religious. Is God religious?

Actually, this sounds much like a traditional EV shibboleth regarding a distinction between spirituality and religion, used to support non-denominational "born again" Christian sect and ministry creation.

New Agers are also partial to this kind of thinking, probably because of the aggressive and promiscuous syncretism of that particular movement.

[_Droopy]

No, not as long as it fosters absurdity. We could also say to child molesters, "each to their own".

Yes, and while you're obsessing about homosexuality as per usual, child molestation, or pedophilia, is the next "civil right" to raise its petition to the heavens for redress once homosexuals achieve their desired ends in redefining marriage, gender, and family.

Of course, homosexual marriage isn't a civil rights issue at all, even though its supporters know that rights talk shuts down rational thought and engages little more than the hypothalamus.