Anti-religion literature?


Faithless
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, his career isn't religion, or even anti-religion. It's evolution. And trust me, that makes him very, very happy.

I believe also in evolution, but I still believe in God.

Sciences and religion have to be separated. The problem had always been than one try to influance, dominate, the other :remember the Catholic with Galileo and now some evolutionist (Darwin and ...) who try to demonstrate that the historical acount of the creation is false so the bible also...

But I believe the bible is more symbolicly true than Historicly (in this part ..). So personaly I don't care.

The spiritual truths are to be understood not only with our rational.

The followings scriptures must apply to us and I believe answer your question :

Matthieu 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

and also :

Matthieu 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

And also :

James 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

13 ¶Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

This wisdom is more valuable than the scientific even if we can love and apreciate this one also (and have joy in it :-) ).

Personally, I am still a Christian even if I consider myself no more as a mormon.

Good continuation,

Sorry for my English, I am french..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing with anti-anything literature is the attitude. Honestly, a great deal of the stuff that makes up anti-Mormon literature is... true. Nothing that you couldn't find going through church documents and whatnot. The problem is that these people take their own interpretation of the material and refuse to believe that anyone could have a different interpretation/reaction. I haven't read the books you mentioned, but that's because I have a live-and-let-live attitude and have no interest in reading why I shouldn't be part of a religion.

My ideal for learning about another religion would be to talk to someone who is clearheaded and honest. A zealot might sugarcoat everything, but someone who is bitter is only going to put a negative spin on it.

The fact is, we have free agency. When you get right down to it, we are all free to read whatever we want and there's not much anyone can do to stop us. But if something doesn't interest us, why should we read it?

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I've never been a fan of anti-mormon literature or even anti-religion literature.

Anti-mormon literature is often written out of spite and contempt. There may be truth in the things that are written, and there may not be. I've never cared enough to look that much into it. I don't believe that the LDS church is divinely-inspired, and that's enough for me. I don't need fellow apostates giving me their takes on the history of a church I no longer believe in.

I read The God Delusion and I can honestly say that I wasn't that impressed. I'm not saying Dawkins was wrong. I just thought some of his arguments were fairly weak. He's an expert in the field of evolutionary biology, and I think he should keep his focus there and stay out of theology. The only other "atheist" book I've read is Anarchy Evolution by Greg Graffin, and it actually takes a pretty level-headed approach to religion, especially compared to Dawkins' work. I haven't read God is not Great, nor do I intend to. I know my reasons for rejecting religion, and that's good enough for me. I respect the views of my theist friends and family members, and I don't need anyone to tell me why their beliefs are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faithless,

Reading your OP, I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that you said you left the LDS for personal reasons and that to me seems to indicate there was an event deeply offensive in hurtful in your ward and that caused you to dissassociate yourself from the LDS church. But then, looking at your handle, "faithless", it doesn't seem that it's Mormons you have a problem with, but rather God himself. You wouldn't be the first to have resentment toward God because of the actions of some of his followers even though reason would inform you that it's illogical to hold God responsible for the actions of Christians who a): have free will and b): are not being told by God to be beligerant.

And now you're reading literature written by those hostile altogether toward God. Atheism isn't hard to figure out. A truly dispassionate and fair minded atheist would be nonplussed by the issue of God's existence. They wouldn't be on a crusade to prove God doesn't exist, nor would they be offended by religious expression because if they truly believed God doesn't exist, then there would be no antipathy toward God at all. But that isn't the case with these most vocal of atheists, is it? Their mission to prove that God doesn't exist only serves as a backhanded acknowledgement of his existence. It's as if God is to them a black hole that they say isn't there, but exerts a certain gravity upon them so that their whole lives, passions, and system of beliefs are oriented toward it. In their own tortured way, they are telling you what you already know, that God is indeed real.

My thinking is that the only wall between you and God, including fellowship with his followers, whether that be LDS or any other denomination, is this hurtful event in your past. I would recommend and hope that you come to terms with these offenses, come to a place of forgiveness, gain a healthy perspective on the fallen nature of man, even men who claim to serve the Almighty, and come back into full fellowship with the rest of us flawed followers of Christ. I hope you'll give this some thought.

In the Sacred Heart of Christ.

Edited by Saintmichaeldefendthem1
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-mormon literature thread that is not of anti-mormon litarature? Change the name to anti-religion then!

If anti-religious books are as stupid as anti-mormon books they are a waist of time. They just try to digg the earth from under you, so suddenly you might find out you stand on a grass-square in the air and fall.

If you are faithless so you can read what ever you wont and it dont do anything to you and why should you care if you are faithless? Why start a thread like this in a religious forum? Cant see a point? Except constating here or elsewhere, that church is telling people what to read or what not.

I have read a lot of anti- literatutre it dont bother me spirituallya s I read it not because of to find out the wrongs but how to defend against it. To find out how people who read or write such .... think and how to help the weeker not to fall for those stupid sceems!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always taught growing up, both by my parents and the church, that you shouldn't read books such as "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins, or "God is Not Great", by Christopher Hitchens. After leaving the church for personal reasons, I read both of these books. The God Delusion didn't even mention the LDS church, and God is Not Great briefly covered it, only giving a short history of it, then moved on to religion itself. Now I ask myself, why is it considered bad to read these books? It's just reading the other side of the story. Being told not to read these is like someone from a political party saying that they are right, but not to research the other party and saying that they are the wrong way to vote.

I was just a little confused by this and wanted your guy's opinion. Thanks!:lol:

Think about it this way: Anti-Mormon Literature can have the same effects on a person as that of Pornography. It destroys, rather than uplifts. It is not worthwhile, it is demeaning, it is morally incompatible with the truth and the realization as to the nature and being of God.

Also, if you are having problems in your marriage, would you seek out the advice of your friends who have been divorced, or would you go to someone who has had experience and knowledge in restoring one's marriage, or a marriage councilor?

Certainly, you would not go to a dentist to find out why your child is sick with the flu for three weeks now would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone really has questions/issues with church history or doctrine, there are so many great sources to go to. Anti-Mormon just puts a biased spin on all of it. They're not trying to be helpful or informative, they're trying to break down another person's beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I woke up a saw a lot of posts here. After some thought, here's the best way I can sum it all up.

#1: I agree with most of the comments here as to why you should not read anti-religion literature if you want to stay in the church. Like you all said, in your own way, that reading that does not bring you close to christ, only away. Thank you all for helping me to understand that.

#2: Godless, the reason why I read anti-religious material is because it interests me in their arguments. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and all (or most) of his arguments are based on evolution. If evolution is true, then the creation must have been false if you take it directly, and literally, from the bible. Most of the people he argues with take a literal translation of the bible, and not a symbolical stand point like the church.

#3:Saintmichaeldefendthem1, the reason I left the church for "personal reasons" were not because of its members, its leaders, or those who oppose it. The reason why I said personal reasons was so that people didn't think I left because of the books I have read. I left the church because of it's teachings, and when looking for a new church, I found that the best thing to do was leave religion out of it, and to just try to be kind to others and live life to its fullest. I am also going into biology for my career, and learning about evolution, and the stance that many people in religions take on evolution I do not agree with. Also, you do have to look at the members of the church if you want to judge the church, not just the teachings. The members of the church are the "fruits" that it brings. They are the product, as a whole, of what the church teaches. I looked at both what the church teaches and the product I would become if I joined the church, and they didn't meet up to my standards. So, I left.

#4:imanuelga, I'm sorry to disagree with you here, but I do think that science and religion should be mixed. I could not go to school one day thinking that the universe is a product of a big bang, and that humans, animals, plants, and life in general evolved, and then go believing that man was created in god's image when I know that he is still changing, and that women was created from man, and that the first two humans were put in a garden, in America, and did not come from a common, ape-like ancestor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it this way: Anti-Mormon Literature can have the same effects on a person as that of Pornography. It destroys, rather than uplifts. It is not worthwhile, it is demeaning, it is morally incompatible with the truth and the realization as to the nature and being of God.

Also, if you are having problems in your marriage, would you seek out the advice of your friends who have been divorced, or would you go to someone who has had experience and knowledge in restoring one's marriage, or a marriage councilor?

Certainly, you would not go to a dentist to find out why your child is sick with the flu for three weeks now would you?

I've already answered both of those questions in the forum. They are on page 2, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-mormon literature thread that is not of anti-mormon litarature? Change the name to anti-religion then!

If anti-religious books are as stupid as anti-mormon books they are a waist of time. They just try to digg the earth from under you, so suddenly you might find out you stand on a grass-square in the air and fall.

If you are faithless so you can read what ever you wont and it dont do anything to you and why should you care if you are faithless? Why start a thread like this in a religious forum? Cant see a point? Except constating here or elsewhere, that church is telling people what to read or what not.

I have read a lot of anti- literatutre it dont bother me spirituallya s I read it not because of to find out the wrongs but how to defend against it. To find out how people who read or write such .... think and how to help the weeker not to fall for those stupid sceems!

How would I go about changing the name? Please tell me how so I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#3:Saintmichaeldefendthem1, the reason I left the church for "personal reasons" were not because of its members, its leaders, or those who oppose it. The reason why I said personal reasons was so that people didn't think I left because of the books I have read. I left the church because of it's teachings, and when looking for a new church, I found that the best thing to do was leave religion out of it, and to just try to be kind to others and live life to its fullest. I am also going into biology for my career, and learning about evolution, and the stance that many people in religions take on evolution I do not agree with. Also, you do have to look at the members of the church if you want to judge the church, not just the teachings. The members of the church are the "fruits" that it brings. They are the product, as a whole, of what the church teaches. I looked at both what the church teaches and the product I would become if I joined the church, and they didn't meet up to my standards. So, I left.

.

Thank you for clearing that up. My parents came from the RLDS and left it because of the errors they found. They became evangelical Christians and my dad is now a pentacostal pastor. That's how I was raised. But I became Catholic because of the errors I found in Protestantism, so as you can see, we're all on separate journeys in our search for the truth. I'm glad you see how your forum ID has raised some questions as to the message you are trying to get across; it certainly confused me.

But anyhow, you can see you'll get no argument from me about leaving the LDS because of errors in its teaching. It seems to me there are two types of Mormons. The first type is those who truly believe Joseph Smith's account of the visitation by an angel named Moroni, the finding of golden sheets and seer stones for interpreting its message, and how it lead to the publishing of the Book of Mormon. These Mormons break down further into type A that have an explanation for all the glaring inconsistancies and fallacies of logic that cast Smith's story in a suspicious light and type B that believe on sheer faith and avoid grappling with the tough questions.

The other type of Mormons are those who joined because of the unique culture and sense of belonging that the LDS offers. The LDS community is certainly an attractive one and, I believe, a healthy place to raise a family. These types give little thought as to the veracity of the claims of Joseph Smith and avoid the discussion altogether. They join the choir, fulfill their Relief Society obligations, send their kids on missions, and see the LDS church as a manifest opportunity to live a life of virtue and charity.

It seems that you and I are truth seekers with a low tolerance for error. We are the type that will abandon cherished beliefs when they are found to be at variance with the truth. Truth seekers are often unpopular and find themselves drawing the ire of the masses all united in their dispensation toward specious beliefs political and religious. Truth seekers have such conviction that they will stand alone, if need be, with the whole world shouting them down because they'd rather be right than popular. Truth seekers are thinkers who approach everything in life scientifically, able to take a concept from inception to its logical conclusion, exposing the errors found and latching on only to theories that withstand the most rigorous of scrutiny.

My journey for the truth has concluded itself in my entry into the Catholic Church, a faith that has withstood the most trying test of all...time. Keep searching until you find an unassailable truth and then latch on to it with all your might. I'm confident you'll get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another vein, I just wanted to offer my thoughts on your exploration of the theory of evolution. Clearly I'm not an advocate of evolution, but perhaps these perspectives might speak to you.

1. It's important to remember that evolution is a theory and nothing more. As you rub elbows with the most stauch defenders of evolution, you will no doubt detect the putrid stench of religious conviction. To these types, science is no longer a search for the truth, but rather a means to an end.

2. Know the limitations of science. Science never leads to truth, it only leads to facts; conclusions derived from a systemized gauntlet of experiments using the test and control method. True science is listless and always self correcting. No conclusion is immune from reconsideration when new evidence comes to light. And so, science never settles itself on any theory, falling in love with it to the point of blindness. Until 3 years ago, Pluto was a planet, for example. Now it's an escaped moon.

3. Remember that science has no agenda other than going where the evidence leads, but scientists are human and have an agenda. Humans will deviate from the scientific model by starting with the conclusion they have settled upon for religious reasons, and then curving the facts to lead inevitably to those conclusions. Be aware of how human foibles can foul the scientific process.

I hope these three perspectives will help you to remain free of the pitfalls that lie ahead on the journey you are on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would I go about changing the name? Please tell me how so I can.

You can ask a modertor to do it. Pam for example... it would help thanks. I no longer moderate so I cant do it for you. I think we can not .. or can we go to modify our own posts... such a long time since I was here... anyway you can modify it yourself if it says modify on the right corner of your textbox... low... I think. Go to advanced...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've already left the LDS Church, and made your own decisions and conclusions about it, and read the books you were taught not to read, then why do you care about the reasons you shouldn't have read them?

Because it's easier to reject a widely-held philosophy when you can console yourself with the thought that the philosophy's adherents just haven't thought/read about it as much as you have.

Better yet if one can persuade oneself that the philosophy actively discourages thinking/reading about it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another vein, I just wanted to offer my thoughts on your exploration of the theory of evolution. Clearly I'm not an advocate of evolution, but perhaps these perspectives might speak to you.

1. It's important to remember that evolution is a theory and nothing more. As you rub elbows with the most stauch defenders of evolution, you will no doubt detect the putrid stench of religious conviction. To these types, science is no longer a search for the truth, but rather a means to an end.

2. Know the limitations of science. Science never leads to truth, it only leads to facts; conclusions derived from a systemized gauntlet of experiments using the test and control method. True science is listless and always self correcting. No conclusion is immune from reconsideration when new evidence comes to light. And so, science never settles itself on any theory, falling in love with it to the point of blindness. Until 3 years ago, Pluto was a planet, for example. Now it's an escaped moon.

3. Remember that science has no agenda other than going where the evidence leads, but scientists are human and have an agenda. Humans will deviate from the scientific model by starting with the conclusion they have settled upon for religious reasons, and then curving the facts to lead inevitably to those conclusions. Be aware of how human foibles can foul the scientific process.

I hope these three perspectives will help you to remain free of the pitfalls that lie ahead on the journey you are on.

1. Evolution is a theory, but I wouldn't call it just a theory. To me, it is the way I view life and the world around me. It is not just a simple fact I can ramble on about, it is a way to explain how things are and gives me comfort knowing that I am not wrong in my leaving the church. To me, if evolution were to be broken down and proven to be false, then I wouldn't know what to believe, unless there was some other supported theory. I defend evolution just as strong as some would defend religion, and to me, it's not just means to the end, but a search for truth.

2. I agree that science is only a way to get facts, however it always leads to truth. That truth is subject to change, but that does not mean that we cannot hold it as true. Science is always changing and accepting new ideas, bringing light onto this world, and making new discoveries each day. Science may not hold up onto any theory, but the theories are (usually) held to be facts and truths until they are proven false. If you asked anyone to name the planets 5 years ago, they would all (hopefully) include Pluto, and that would still be considered a fact then. To me, Evolution is a fact, and a truth, even though it is subject to change.

3. I agree that humans can mess up the scientific method, but that doesn't mean they all do. We may be humans, but the evidence is still evidence. I could argue in the same way that religion is being run by humans, and that even though they try to search for the truth, they will mess up by starting with the conclusion they have settled upon for religious reasons, and then curving the facts to lead inevitably to those conclusions. The point is, science has evidence to back it up, evidence that you can test yourself, see yourself in the observable world, and then you can come to your own conclusion about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never liked the term "glaring inconsistencies". It's a simplistic blanket statement used by people who are not interested in the nuances of historical/psychological aspects of studying the doctrine, history, and human nature of a religion.

Understood. But if I go into detail about the circumstances that cast Smith's claims in a suspicious light, then this thread goes off in a different direction like a 3 stage rocket. When faithless says he left the LDS because of its teachings without going into detail, I have to assume his disagreements hark back to the original claims by which Smith started the church. Rest assured, I'm well aware of the historical nuances and when pressed can deftly articulate why I think JS is was a disreputable man. Not wanting to ignite that powder keg, I'm speaking in glossing generalities with someone who likely shares my perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Evolution is a theory, but I wouldn't call it just a theory. To me, it is the way I view life and the world around me. It is not just a simple fact I can ramble on about, it is a way to explain how things are and gives me comfort knowing that I am not wrong in my leaving the church. To me, if evolution were to be broken down and proven to be false, then I wouldn't know what to believe, unless there was some other supported theory. I defend evolution just as strong as some would defend religion, and to me, it's not just means to the end, but a search for truth.

Do you know Hubert Reeves? An astrophysicien who also believe in evolution.

He wrote many books, but he never exclude religion.

Science answers "How", Religion "Why".

Evolutionism as some time been used to justify way of thinking very selfish : "the strong live, the week die".

Even, if Darwin explain that social comportement help to survive and honesty could be a result of evolution.

But believing or not it come to god , depends of a free agency. And the meaning we want to give to our lives.

Book of Victor frankel "Man search for meaning"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest brettlee
Hidden

I Think Antireligion is distinct from atheism and antitheism , although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine.

Link to comment

I Think Antireligion is distinct from atheism and antitheism , although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine.

You make a distinction between anti-religion and anti-theism and then say anti-religion can be used to describe opposition to a belief in the supernatural or divine which from my position looks like anti-theism would fall into? Or am I just parsing things differently than you intended and you mean to say:

Anti-religion: Active opposition to organized religion.

Anti-theist: Active opposition to supernatural or divine belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it with the concept of the Apocrypha: if you are spiritually, intellectually and emotionally mature, then go ahead and read them. However, be aware that such are the opinions of some scholars and may or may not be accurate in everything they write. Why? Because these are not scientific books, but are religious books - in this instance, atheism is Dawkins' religion, and he is peddling it.

Sadly, most 18 year old LDS kids are not prepared to receive such information. Their parents have not spent the time to spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally prepare them. For example, I know kids who grow up faithful, but then go off to college where they learn the earth is NOT 6000 years old, and that evolution is a fact, and given the evidence assume that all that they learned from their parents about God and Santa Claus is completely wrong. So they quit the Church.

However, smart parents allow their kids to review such concepts at an age appropriate level, and help them to understand the issues, and explain to them why they (the parents) still believe in the gospel regardless of such claims. It also helps if the parents are not clinging onto Flat Earth theories that have nothing to do with the actual Gospel, or whether God exists (Creationism, for example). It is okay to teach kids that they personally believe in Creationism, but it is not necessary to believe in God and Christ. This allows our kids the leeway to discover God for themselves, without false pathways blocking that discovery.

I joined the Church at 16. This meant I had to personally wade through the different perspectives of Apostles and Prophets, and get to the true core doctrines, and leave everything else up in the air. It would have been a shame if Elder Bruce R. McConkie's 7 Deadly Heresies speech would have driven me or any other young person away from faith in God, especially when that was his personal list, and not a Church sanctioned or doctrinal one. It took some time to come to that understanding, but when I did, it was both refreshing and a little scary (knowing prophets could also be a little fallible and opinionated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share