Bullshit over a puppet, I shit you not...

One of my friends on myspace (yes real friend know her in real life an everything) had a picture of her holding a puppet dog thing with the caption "Bogart and Me!!!! My affair with a puppet everyone..."

I left the comment "I don't know why, but the name bogart sounds like some dude that would get drunk; something like "I'm Bogart and I'm sooooo shit faced! WHAT?!?! YOUR MOTHER!!!" :: starts hitting people ::"

I thought it is was funny, but I guess she didn't think so... she left this on my page "Stevie[thats me]...that puppet is for LITTLE children at CHURCH! He's not gonna be a drunk and try to hit people!!!!!!"

Me not letting religion stop me from anything I responded with, "I beg to differ, and be an ass...

Song of Solomon 5:1 ...I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes"

I didn't really need the whole part of the one out of Proverbs, but I always give the whole verse. Anyway I think that give her the direction to say, "If your gonna ATTEMPT to use scrpiture on me Stevie[still me], use it correctly. Those verses are refering to something else entirely different!"

Like I said I don't know accept religion as a taboo subject so I sent her this, "Explin it then,

The first verse seem to say its ok to drink a lot if it is not encouraged.

The second verse seems to say its ok to hit people.

Maybe it is a bit of a stretch, but people have been doing that for a long time. Also I found those in a short amount of time its not like it is my best. However when some churchs say wine is the blood of christ and there are many cases of "the religious" harming others I don't think its that big of a stretch."

She throws back, "The 1st verse: they are NOT saying go be an alcholic Stevie[yea, still me]! You can drink yes but limit the amount you do. At the same time it also talks about drinking the "blood of Christ"-our communion. We should do that daily as well. Most churches do that with WINE!

The 2nd verse: it saying use punishment(like ground or a spanking), not BEAT the child! Also if you look at the second part it says "loveth him"."

I responded with, "1: it says "drink abundantly" I think that means drink abundantly, as in a lot... Lets look at the Hebrew it comes from

"yea drink abundantly - shakar (shaw-kar') - a primitive root; to become tipsy; in a qualified sense, to satiate with a stimulating drink or (figuratively) influence:--(be filled with) drink (abundantly), (be, make) drunk(-en), be merry."

Does that just mean he can't be an angry drunk? If thats the case I'll take back the idea that the puppet will get drunk and hit people at the same time.

2: in the comment on the picture I didn't say beat I said hit and all my quote establishes is that hitting can be ok. However since you said that it is only about punishment then I guess I have to hit my children to love them... Lets look at another quote from the same book.

Proverbs
23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

But really [name] it was a joke and then you got all 'you aren't using scripture correctly' which is subjective btw. I expected you to disprove the first verse, however you didn't do it by citeing any of the other parts of the bible that says not to drink. You decided to say, "Oh you don't know what your talking about." That just gives me a bit of fuel. Now, I think I has somewhat of a case of being correct because I looked up the hebrew. Also your statement that seems to imply denal of hitting kids is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

"spank-to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment."

Personally I would never hit my kids, but we aren't talking about what I would do. Spanking is hitting no way to get around it and the bible is saying it is ok of[damn it that should be 'if'] not something that should be done. "

She deleted all my comments

She deleted all my comments on it and hasn't said anything else...

A bit of an update I had

A bit of an update I had been on her top 8 and she just took me off of her friends list. I guess this mean religion just took one of my friends. And before people go oh its just myspace I have known her in real life since 8th grade and we are going to the same college right now. Not that I see her often or that I'm real close to her or anything.

rationalmormon's picture

easy christian comment:

I don't even count Psalms, Proverbs, or Solomon's Song as scripture. They're just old documents that just got thrown in with the rest because they were from the right place, right time, and right people. If I played with dice, I'd bet the writters would have written those books if they knew it'd be put in with the teachings of the prophets. If you want to quote the Old Testament do it from Isaiah or Malachi or something.

A bit choosy aren't we? At

A bit choosy aren't we? At least have the courage to accept the bad stuff with the good instead of trying to find excuses. As long as there are a billion people who accept the whole package as the Holy Bible, we might as well quote from it what we want.

Saying there can't be morality without God,
is like saying there can't be presents without Santa Claus!

rationalmormon's picture

Any body who looks at the

Any body who looks at the history of Christianity or the line of preisthood authority (God's authority) can see that it ends no later than two hundred years after Christ dies. The bible was put together at the Council of Nicaea, right? Men with just as much of authority as you and me put together the bible out of old books, most of which were teachings of the gospel. If you read those three books you can straightway see that it's not about Christ or gospel. It's not docterine.

There are many other threads

There are many other threads about the bible's history, my point was that as long as people consider psalms and proverbs part of the biblical canon we might as well quote from it, because it is a potential influence to the lives of everyone (leviticus being a prime example of biblical influence).

Saying there can't be morality without God,
is like saying there can't be presents without Santa Claus!

rationalmormon's picture

Alright, but if you throw

Alright, but if you throw something bogas at me I will tell you. I expect the same, eh?

ok first I asked her about

ok first I asked her about it and she said it was an accident. I don't know how much of an accident that can be but whatever she is weak when it comes to life and arguements (again this is looking past her theism)...

Ok now rationalmormon to say that you pick and choose what is holy and what isn't pretty much makes the idea of the holy book fall apart. That like saying "all US laws are far and just" then saying "oh yeah a few of them aren't, but that doesn't mean we can't follow the others like they are."

It not that bogas the holy bible is either holy or it isn't I don't think you can get around it. I mean really anyone can have a few good rules and then a few bad rules but if there are any bad rules a person can't say the set of rules is different from any other set. Also those good rules don't do anything about or for the bad ones.

Bottom line, if you describe a book as your holy book then it is fair to quote from it like it is your holy book.

Quote:Alright, but if you

Quote:
Alright, but if you throw something bogas at me I will tell you. I expect the same, eh?

What was bogus about it?

Saying there can't be morality without God,
is like saying there can't be presents without Santa Claus!

rationalmormon's picture

that was future tense

that was future tense

wait... Your telling him

wait...

Your telling him before he says something bogus, implying that he will, that you'll make sure to tell him?

You know if he hasn't done it yet why even bring it up...

rationalmormon's picture

Oh gosh.

You guys are reading far too much into the comment.

What is was saying is if he starts sprouting off crazy rumors...things like SilkyShrew is saying...then I'm going to tell him that he's believing in something that is not true and not rational.

It was an irronic joke because he thinks my belief in God is irrational.

chill y'all.

Heh... anyway no problem

Heh... anyway, no problem with constructive criticism Smiling

SilkyShrew's picture

What crazy rumor am I

What crazy rumor am I sprouting off with? I try to be very clear and accurate in the things that I say.

todangst's picture

Crazy rumors? Sounds like

Crazy rumors? Sounds like your projecting again, RM.

Seems to me that your 'rational stance' is actually born of the fact that mormons only criticize the bible because of their need to support the book of mormon. You hold that the book of mormon is perfect, right?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.

I'm thinking it has to do

I'm thinking it has to do with the things that makes him think you where a mormon for only a week...

I try to stay out of the things I don't know about, but he doesn't seem to want to talk to me about the things I asked. I guess he's too busy defending his faith from those who know about it Eye-wink

I don't know, like I said, but are there variations of mormonism? I think something like that would be causing all this confusion, that and a no true scotsmen.

SilkyShrew's picture

Given his area, I think it

Given his area, I think it is more likely a no true scotsman fallacy. There are several sects of mormonism, but I was a mainstream mormon, and he's likely a mainstream mormon. Those who are not mainstream often identify themselves with qualifiers, like, "FLDS" or "RLDS." What has actually happened is, you don't necesarily get all the doctrines of the religion when you're a mormon kid. I've had many experiences that he hasn't had, I've taught lessons in classes he's not allowed to take, and I've participated in ceremonies he's not ready for yet. Furthermore, I've apparently studied the religion much more than he has.

So, his argument is basically, "no true scotsman" and then he's arguing against stuff because he just doesn't know about it. The references I've given thus far, though, are intentionally straight from the doctrine he follows and sources from within his own religion. That makes it a bit difficult, because I intend to keep with that for now due to some problems encountered with outside sources that report mormon practices. Some "anti-mormon" sites do misrepresent the religion, and mormons are often aware of that. Most likely rational mormon thinks I'm from one of those groups, even though I'm not. I've seen some of their stuff and I usually try to clarify where they are wrong when I see others use it.

rationalmormon wrote:I don't

rationalmormon wrote:
I don't even count Psalms, Proverbs, or Solomon's Song as scripture. They're just old documents that just got thrown in with the rest because they were from the right place, right time, and right people.

so then what is it exactly that differentiates them from any of the other books? they're old, from the same time, place, and people? seems to me that makes them....well...kind of...the same.

Fear is the mindkiller.

SilkyShrew's picture

I was kinda hoping that he

I was kinda hoping that he would answer you - but since he didn't, I will. Mormons see the Bible as being flawed due to centuries of translations and such that it has gone through. This stance is supported by some vague reference in the bible (I don't remember where, so please forgive) about there being future books or revelations, or something like that. Part of their basic religion is based on the Bible being flawed:

Mormon Articles of Faith, Article #8 and #9 wrote:
8) We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9) We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

These two statements are from a part of the mormon doctrine that are some of the basis for the entire mormon religion, the Articles of Faith. Note the qualifier in #8 of "as far as it is translated correctly," this is in recognition of the flaws of the Book of Mormon. These articles describe some of the basic principles that we are taught from infancy about the mormon religion (I had them memorized as a kid and could rattle them off on cue whenever needed, along with several other scriptures, we even had songs to help us learn and remember them). Mormons are taught that although the books in the Bible (they use the KJV version) were once perfect, that in time they were corrupted at the hands of man to the point that the "gospel" was no longer present on the Earth. This is what opens up the way for the Mormon religion - they did, afterall, need a reason for a new prophet with new books for them to adhere to, right?

So, due to the corrupt state of the world, God decided to disrupt the life of one 14 year old boy (according to what the Mormons are taught), Mr. Joseph Smith. This boy tries to find out which of the religions all around him could be true, and allegedly goes to a garden to pray to God about the truth of all those religions, trying to find out which is the "true" church. So, when he's in this garden, he first is overpowered by an evil being, which he fights off, then gets to meet God and Jesus - two heavenly beings who come to him and tell him all the religions are wrong and that he must join none of them.

As told in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith History, Verses 11 to 20.

This story is a great lead-in to Joseph becoming a martyr (in a sense, he was a martyr before he was killed, at least in portrayal, it is apparent throughout the writings in which he is referred that he and his flock were persecuted).

Now, this is only part of the story, to get a more complete image of what the disregard for the Bible is about from mormons, you must also be aware of their answer to the problem of the flawed Bible. This answer involves a couple things - Firstly, the Book of Mormon is considered to contain events that took place during the latter portion of time of the events of the Bible. The Book of Mormon is a direct translation of the Golden Plates (according to the mormons), assisted by the Holy Spirit (The Holy Ghost, and third member of the Godhead, who according to them is a spirit, unlike God and Jesus who have both had bodies) through a tool called the Urim and Thummim. Thus, the Book of Mormon is perfect in their doctrine, where the Bible is not (though the Bible is considered an assistant to the words of God that you find in the Book of Mormon and it is taught that they are inter-dependant). Another Book that has been translated by Joseph Smith is the Pearl of Great Price, in which you may find the Book of Abraham which was taken from some Egyptian Papyri that Joseph Smith obtained. These papyri were later found to actually be the Hor Book of Breathings, which turned out to have nothing at all to do with some dude named Abraham. Secondly, the Mormons believe that revelation from God continues to happen, through their living prophet (the prophet is said to serve in the First Presidency and the current prophet is Gordon B. Hinkley).

Having a living prophet is a great help to the mormons in that they have a default - they rely on the prophet for an up-to-date Godline:

four related Articles of Faith, article #s 5-7; 9 wrote:
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

This allows the prophet to more easily make modifications where they may be needed in church doctrine so that things can run smoothly within their social context. That being the case, what the prophet says is true today, though it may conflict with past doctrine, is the most true aspect of the gospel that the mormons follow. Knowing that there are things that God "will yet reveal" also allows mormons to answer a question easily with things like, "well, we don't know everything," and it reinforces the concept of it not being possible to know all the ways of God.

Thus, arguing about the Bible isn't going to make a mormon falter much because they recognize that the Bible is flawed as a basic part of their doctrine. Anyways, hope that answers your question. Really, though, if anyone else has questions or something, I'm not using this data in my brain for anything else at the moment - feel free to ask about things.

P. S. - I'm referencing all mormon materials. There are two reasons for this - 1) if our mormon friend comes back, he can look to his own references for varification of all that I say and 2) there really are anti-mormon things out there that have inaccuracies and this helps make it so that I don't have to weed through stuff and say, "well this isn't exactly right and this is." That would be confusing for people. Hence, you get references straight from the religion's mouth.

Smiling

ha ha, that almost answered

ha ha, that almost answered too much Eye-wink
to quote an old episode of The Tick cartoon show and apply it to Mormon doctrine: "Swedish? Hmmm, sounds more.....made up."

Fear is the mindkiller.