What is your thoughts/understandings of the "Book of Mormons". I do know
the basic-basics like the historical foundations and so-on, but, not the
"Why/What/How do Mormons Beleive".

Please dont paste the Wikipedia entry [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon ] - share your thoughts,
thats more interesting.

Depends who you ask right?

Devout hindu's are quick to emphasize that the Sanskrit scriptures are
at least 10,000yrs old. Moderates are agreeable that the accepted age of
the text is approximately 3000bc, or 5000yrs old.

The current Jewish year is 5764, celebrating 5700 years of Mosaic Law
(the clock started running at the first Passover). By this timeline, the
Sanskrit and Old Testament have nearly "simultaneous" ages.

There are alot of very interesting overlaps in the two religions, a
point often brought up by Rabbi Labbi Wolf in his lectures (he's an
influential Kabbalist Rabbi).

Concerning Sex-Slaves:

"And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who
have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war)" (4:24 also Suras 4:3
and 33:50)

...i suppose that is fitting enough example.

Koran - concerning Jews as Monkeys:

"... They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has
fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine..." (5:60);

"...You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who
transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which we
condemned them: Be ye like apes, despised" (2:65)

"when, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit
of that which they were forbidden, we condemned them: Be ye as apes,
despised" (7:166)

I've tried to read parts of the Sanskrit scriptures, but, they are very
opaque, and are deep with cultural meaning that I just dont comprehend.

Maybe someday, I'll hook up with a hindi-honey who will enlighten me.

The amazing thing about the Bhagavad-gita is that it has some eerie
overlaps, in strange detail, with both the written, and oral, traditions
of the Old Testament (in Hebrew form).

In Sanskrit the letters themselves have mystical meaning and form. Same
in Hebrew, and many divinations of meaning appear in both texts. Both
share the concept of re-incarnation as a progressive movement to unity
with the singular deity.

I cant recall at the moment, but there are even several overlapping
words that have the same cultural context and meaning.


Perhaps most surprising fact is: The worlds oldest standing synagogue
[outside Israel] is in Goa, India.

You can find these texts on the web. Search for "Gnostic Abraham", or
"Gnostic Ibrahim", and try "Oral Tradition Abraham", "Kabbalah Abraham".

Lots of fun stuff. Some of it is clearly 'doubtful', some of it is very
insightful.

You like to stir up trouble! Keep up the good work.

From my understanding, Mohammed brought no new ideas into the Abrhamic
religion. Even the 'revelations' about 'the real' Jesus were already
well established non-catholic traditions.

However, my core issue with Islam is two parts. One, the established
concept of 'abborgation'. The Koran has several contradictions within
it, on a major level. Islam says, "Well God changed his mind, and
whatever he said last is what remains" [my simplification, not theirs].
When it was written that "Christians are friends and protectors of
Believers", then later abbrogated to say "...any christian you find is
not a real christian, so they should be enslaved" is a disturbing
problem. It gets worse from there.

Secondly, the problem with Islam is the on-going determination that it
is scripturally declared by 'God' that people must be slaughtered in the
name of Islam as a perpetual process. You will say "but, christians been
killing ppl for thousands of years in the name of 'Jesus'". I dont deny
this, but, no where in the gospel is there any support for this as a
"religious vow". Within Islam, it is.

Islam says all men are brothers. The fine print says "all ISLAMIC men
are brothers, jews are monkeys, and pretty much everyone else, women
included, is en-slavable'.

Interpretations of christianity are filled with horrors, but, the core
message doesnt support institutionalized racisim and genocide as Islam
does.

"How to make Holy Water"

Take 1 glass tap water. Sprinkle 1 packet of "Beleif", stir gently.

While I'm not Roman Catholic, I attended 12yrs of Catholic school and
have a general understanding of the rites. The water is made 'holy'
because of the belief of *the beleiver*. Thus, any water is legitimately
holy if is revered so.

I'm not pulling sh1t here, thats the fundamental belief. So you can
gargle with it, you can water the plans with it - there's no
'disrespectful' use other than whatever insult you intend to perform
with it. It has no 'magical' status either.

Here are my thoughts on Original Sin. It exists, but is not 'bad'.

Sin is the absence of God. Where God "isnt" there is "sin". This is not
a bad thing. Its a simple statement of fact. God doesnt 'physically'
exist in the 'world', and so we can say this 'shadow' is simply 'sin'.
Its by design, its a limitation, its reality. So be it.

So, anything "alive", or "not physically in union with God" is "in sin".
If you beleive in heaven, then when your soul returns to be in the
presence of God, the soul has "no sin".

Since life is passed on through sex, that life-sin is passed through sex
and birth. Again, its not a "bad" thing. Its just life can beget life
even without God's handiwork in a garden.

That is the meaning of "Original Sin". Its not a social disease, or a
classification of personal character. Its just life that begets life in
the shadow of God's creation.

When you attach puritan ideas to the notion of "sin" then things get
complicated and start requiring weird rituals of cleansing, rebirth,
guilt, confession - ugh. All too complicated.

Doesnt seem like a problem to me that we stand by Taiwan. Why would it
be a problem?

If China uses force to force Taiwan to step into line, then they have
every right to retaliate. If they use missiles that have been modified
with our "tacit approval" - so what.

After all, its China thats said "millitary force" is an open option if
Taiwan doesnt change its independence plans. Not the other way around.

It p1sses me off, I dont like it - it feels like opportunistic "shock
me" headline-grabbing. In other words, its done just to be annoying, not
cognizant of the real displeasure it causes to ordinary Americans.

But, I will say this, its entirely likely that all those students are US
citizens. Their parents may be illegals, but, since they are enrolled in
the public school system, they're likely US citizens. They choose an
ugly way to make their point, but, I take that as "yet another" sign of
our p1ss poor public education system.

SororityGirl: You make a great point "They're gonna do it - they should
be protected!". I agree, and thats the core to what sex-ed is for -
teach them to protect. To me, one valid aspect of that protection is to
say, in a morally-neutral way, "you really should give serious
consideration to simply NOT engaging until you are older".

Seems reasonable enough.

Jane,

Please start up threads for your ideas! Put something in the title so
that its clear that its meant to be a "share with me" type of thread,
and not a "Debate With Me" thread [like the ones I start].


-Mike

my bible has 613 commandments....

The new album is out. I got it, and its "ok". They're also on tour this
summer. Any JSH ppl thinking of going? I'm planning July 8th.

I am shy, and I hate it. I'm so bad that I've forced myself to take
classes ("improv/comedy") to overcome it. Ugh.

Shyness + Single = Suck.

"Parents take care of their children"

<grin> Good point. Not much I can offer as a counter point other than to
say "we got everything we need to run the place, so its our
responsibility & problem". We're not pets, or children.

The damn shame of it is that I was all psyched to visit Iran. I tried to
get a visa to visit in the 90s - I had heard so much about Tehran being
"the Paris of the middle-east". I even enlisted my boss' boss who was
from Tehran to help me out. He gave me a stern warning "You dont want to
goto Iran."

All in all, I dont see any room in the world for a country that says
they will "destroy" another country solely because of religion. Its
foolish to allow that country the ability/likelyhood to construct
weapons to acheive that mass-destruction, even if they dont currently
"appear" to be making them.

The numbers vary slightly because of how the deaths are classified.
Meaning, did the death occur AT the scene? Or some tim e later due to
complications? Did the action occur during a mission, or from an attack?
and so on.