What religion are you?   307 members have voted

  1. 1. What religion are you?

    • Catholic
      16
    • Protestant
      39
    • Mormon
      86
    • Jewish
      13
    • Muslim
      12
    • Buddhist
      2
    • Hindu
      3
    • Cosmereism
      7
    • Atheist/Agnostic
      74
    • Other
      18
    • Christian - Other
      37

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

812 posts in this topic

38 minutes ago, Slowswift said:

We do have one. It's a few years old, but here's the link. :)

 

Thanks! I will take my ideas over there then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jondesu said:

In the Bible, God has Dominion over the earth, which He then gives to man as well. Basically, it's considered to be both rule and responsibility; you tend and develop and also rule over. Now, part of that might be too close to Cultivation, but the concept I think is sound when it comes to applying it to the Shard of Dominion. It's about benevolent rule and care.

Thanks for your input! A different way of looking at it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ammanas said:

Thanks! I will take my ideas over there then.

No problem. :) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ammanas said:

I don't know if there is a separate thread for this and couldn't find it, but I was wondering if anyone has noticed how much Sanderson's religion has influenced his work. There are a few things unique to the Lds church I think I have noticed (although I may be wrong) and was wondering if anyone would like to discuss?

Kelsier-as-Messiah always particularly struck me, just from a Christian standpoint.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oversleep said:

It could be about benevolent rule and care. The Shard by itself is just about ruling. Now, how the Shardholder interprets the Intent, however... Imagine Dalinar Ascending to Dominion. Now, imagine Straff Ascending to Dominion.

Right, I meant in its original context. That would likely have been distorted, but with the right Vessel? It could easily have remained benevolent, until the death of Skai, and then at that point we see the Skaze emerge, the Fjordell religion, etc, all using pieces of Dominion (I believe Jaddeth and/or Wyrm are splinters, and we know Skaze are) seperated from that guiding mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have any buddhists here? Because I stumbled on some info on buddhism and after I read up a little on it a question popped up in my mind:

How would Ruin turn out if a buddhist was a Vessel?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Oversleep said:

Do we have any buddhists here? Because I stumbled on some info on buddhism and after I read up a little on it a question popped up in my mind:

How would Ruin turn out if a buddhist was a Vessel?

I imagine the same, except with Buddhist justifications

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the ultimate goal in Buddhism is the cessation of personal existence, yes? Nirvana as either complete annihilation, or the merging of the consciousness with the fabric of the universe (and thus the complete cessation of 'self'). 

This aligns well with Ruin, save that it's personal and not corporate - so the average Buddhist would want Ruination of themselves, but wouldn't try to force it on the world. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2017 at 7:28 PM, Oversleep said:

Do we have any buddhists here? Because I stumbled on some info on buddhism and after I read up a little on it a question popped up in my mind:

How would Ruin turn out if a buddhist was a Vessel?

Khmer Rouge.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question.

An argument I've heard for the truth of Judaism, many times, is that no other religion or nation claims mass revelation. Meaning, any message heard from G-D was one person who then transmitted it to others (Implication: Other prophets could be liars and other religions are false yada yada yada). Yet at Mt. Sinai, G-D spoke to every single person at the same time and that's when we accepted the Torah.

Is that true? Do you have any examples or counter-examples of mass revelation in any other religion at any time? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Day of Pentecost in the New Testament for general Christianity is one

In the LDS (mormon) church, we had the Kirtland Temple dedication, which was similar to Pentecost, and a few other examples in the Book of Mormon

Looking around a bit online, the Aztecs also had an instance of mass revelation when they were told to uproot themselves and move to Tenochtitlan (a move with some surprising parallels to the Israelite migration).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gargoyle said:

The Day of Pentecost in the New Testament for general Christianity is one

In the LDS (mormon) church, we had the Kirtland Temple dedication, which was similar to Pentecost, and a few other examples in the Book of Mormon

Looking around a bit online, the Aztecs also had an instance of mass revelation when they were told to uproot themselves and move to Tenochtitlan (a move with some surprising parallels to the Israelite migration).

That does sound a lot like Abraham :o 

So what's Pentecost and the Kirtland Temple? What happened?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Pentecost, there were a group of Jesus' followers together after he'd died. While they were all there together, they became in tune with the Holy Spirit and some of them started prophesying in a way that everybody understood what they were saying in their native language.

In LDS history, during the dedication of the first temple in Kirtland Ohio, they reported a similar experience. According to an account by Joseph Smith, the prophet at the time, "A noise was heard like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple, and all the congregation simultaneously arose, being moved upon by an invisible power; many began to speak in tongues and prophesy; others saw glorious visions; and I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

more like LSD history* :P

I used to make fun of other religions, too. And to be honest, I regret that every day. Not only is it a violation of the golden rule (treat others as you want to be treated—it'd drive me crazy when people mocked my religion, and yet I'd do it to others for a quick laugh) but there are so many more ways to make people laugh, ways that don't involve potentially making someone else uncomfortable. 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TwiLyghtSansSparkles, @Darkness Ascendant - I was starting to find this funny but twi brought me back down to earth. 

While I don't agree with LDS theology, they don't agree with mine. This does not give me, or an LDS person, the right to belittle or mock the others faith.

 

@Deliiiiiightful - Christianity was founded in mass revelation, much like Judaism was; this is natural as the God of Christianity is the same God as that of Judaism; we merely believe that the Messiah has come in the person of Yeshua (Iesus in Greek, Jesu in Latin and Jesus in English). 

While I won't go too deep for risk of letting my (quite natural) biases take the fore, the early history of Christianity is fascinating. 

The success of the faith in the face of immediate and ongoing persecution was frankly astonishing. But yes, Christianity was founded on mass revelation - first the miracles of Yeshua himself, which were extremely public (so much so that a later rabbinical source decrying him, claimed his work was sorcery, but wasn't willing to claim it was fake). This was followed by his appearance post-crucifixion to some 500 witnesses (who went on to found the church) and other major mass revelations (as in Pentecost). 

Whats interesting too in the founding of Christianity, is that the Apostles gained no material or temporal benefit from the church. They one and all remained poor, usually as itinerant missionaries and often, like Paul (a tentmaker), resorting to a profession to sustain themselves while spreading the gospel. They remained poor, single, and were one at a time tortured and executed. It's fascinating history  

 

Contrast this with the founders of Mormonism and Islam, who both gained significant wealth and power from their teachings (Mohammed conquered all of Arabia, and was de facto emperor of Arabia, Smith gained a devoted following with whom he founded cities, gained political position and led a militia), and who both had many wives. (Mohammed had 11, Joseph Smith between 20 and 40). 

Edited by Erunion
Simplifying.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, twi kinda killed it, I don't blame her. I shouldn't have made the joke, but I couldn't help it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Erunion said:

@TwiLyghtSansSparkles, @Darkness Ascendant - I was starting to find this funny but twi brought me back down to earth. 

While I don't agree with LDS theology, they don't agree with mine. This does not give me, or an LDS person, the right to belittle or mock the others faith.

 

@Deliiiiiightful - Christianity was founded in mass revelation, much like Judaism was; this is natural as the God of Christianity is the same God as that of Judaism; we merely believe that the Messiah has come in the person of Yeshua (Iesus in Greek, Jesu in Latin and Jesus in English). 

While I won't go too deep for risk of letting my (quite natural) biases take the fore, the early history of Christianity is fascinating. 

The success of the faith in the face of immediate and ongoing persecution was frankly astonishing. But yes, Christianity was founded on mass revelation - first the miracles of Yeshua himself, which were extremely public (so much so that a later rabbinical source decrying him, claimed his work was sorcery, but wasn't willing to claim it was fake). This was followed by his appearance post-crucifixion to some 500 witnesses (who went on to found the church) and other major mass revelations (as in Pentecost). 

Whats interesting too in the founding of Christianity, is that the Apostles gained no material or temporal benefit from the church. They one and all remained poor, usually as itinerant missionaries and often, like Paul (a tentmaker), resorting to a profession to sustain themselves while spreading the gospel. They remained poor, single, and were one at a time tortured and executed. It's fascinating history  

 

Contrast this with the founders of Mormonism and Islam, who both gained significant wealth and power from their teachings (Mohammed conquered all of Arabia, and was de facto emperor of Arabia, Smith gained a devoted following with whom he founded cities, gained political position and led a militia), and who both had many wives. (Mohammed had 11, Joseph Smith between 20 and 40). 

I think it's interesting though that Moses and Joshua were both prophets and political leaders. I'm not sure why sometimes God calls people to more missionary leaders and others to be religious and political leaders. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Left said:

I think it's interesting though that Moses and Joshua were both prophets and political leaders. I'm not sure why sometimes God calls people to more missionary leaders and others to be religious and political leaders. 

In the time of the kingdoms of Judea and......Solomons kingdom? Or were they both Judea? 

Anyway. 

There was supposed to be a king and a prophet. One for technical legal rulings and the other for morality/spirituality. A kind of separation of church and state, if you excuse the expression. 

But yes Moses and Joshua were both. And then the Judges were usually one or the other with a couple exceptions. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deliiiiiightful said:

In the time of the kingdoms of Judea and......Solomons kingdom? Or were they both Judea? 

Anyway. 

There was supposed to be a king and a prophet. One for technical legal rulings and the other for morality/spirituality. A kind of separation of church and state, if you excuse the expression. 

But yes Moses and Joshua were both. And then the Judges were usually one or the other with a couple exceptions. 

There was never supposed to be a king. But according to scripture God gave it to them even though it was a bad idea. From 1st Samuel ch 8 KJ translation:

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 ¶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Erunion said:

@TwiLyghtSansSparkles, @Darkness Ascendant - I was starting to find this funny but twi brought me back down to earth. 

While I don't agree with LDS theology, they don't agree with mine. This does not give me, or an LDS person, the right to belittle or mock the others faith.

 

Whats interesting too in the founding of Christianity, is that the Apostles gained no material or temporal benefit from the church. They one and all remained poor, usually as itinerant missionaries and often, like Paul (a tentmaker), resorting to a profession to sustain themselves while spreading the gospel. They remained poor, single, and were one at a time tortured and executed. It's fascinating history  

 

Contrast this with the founders of Mormonism and Islam, who both gained significant wealth and power from their teachings (Mohammed conquered all of Arabia, and was de facto emperor of Arabia, Smith gained a devoted following with whom he founded cities, gained political position and led a militia), and who both had many wives. (Mohammed had 11, Joseph Smith between 20 and 40). 

The thing is with Paul is that he did gain a great amount of influence in the cities he shared the gospel to. Read 1st Corinthians just off the top of my head; there were factions that bragged about which early Christian they followed and it caused much division. He didn't ask for it either, but it happened.

There was also a implication in your statement (perhaps I was mistaken) that Joseph Smith lived a cushy life bc of his religious role...that just isnt true. He was imprisoned, tortured, tarred and feathered etc. Also I bet he didnt like the multiple wife thing, but did it as a commandment...according to accounts Ive read it caused him a lot of trouble-more than it was worth.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Deliiiiiightful - Judea was the southern kingdom. After Solomon died, Jeroboam rebelled against Rehoboam (Solomon's son) and the northern tribes followed him. After that point, the Loyalists (Judea, some of Simeon and most of the Levites and Benjamites) became the kingdom of Judah or Judea. 

A great example of the church/state interaction under that rule would be the prophet Nathan's interaction with David w.r.t. the Bathsheba incident. Although it's interesting too, because generally there would be a High Priest, in charge of religious duties, a Prophet, in charge of delivering the word of God, and a King, in charge of leading the people. 

 @Ammanas - Gonna sort of disagree with you there; Deuteronomy lists some requirements for kings, which implies that it was intended for there to be a king. Check out Deuteronomy 17:14-20. (Del, out of curiosity, do the Hebrew scriptures use a similar chapter/verse division as we do? It makes finding references easier, but if you're using a Hebrew book and we're using the western references it may be hard to follow. This is, of course, in the Torah). 
While Samuel does decry the motives and behaviors of the Israelites here, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Israelites were never to have a King. 
Especially consider the later importance of the Messianic/Davidic line, and the promises made to King David. 


On Joseph Smith, I will say that we will probably need to agree to disagree - I have no wish to offend you or any other followers of the LDS faith on this site. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ammanas said:

 Also I bet he (Joseph Smith) didnt like the multiple wife thing, but did it as a commandment...according to accounts Ive read it caused him a lot of trouble-more than it was worth.

<_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.