Master_Xan

When did you become a warlord, Tofu? Anywho, welcome! As a relatively new member, I feel justified in saying that if you enjoy Rebellion (or even Star Wars in general), then you should feel right at home here. The people are nice, the discussions provoke thought, and assuming you are a girl, then there's plenty of guys to go around! (course if you're not, then you can at least have some good fun pretending to be for awhile... )

So, does anybody know who my avatar is? No Google now! Memory only, or you'll ruin it!

That is one of my favorite movies. Not for its accuracy, mind you. But for the feelings portrayed and the questions it raises. How do you know that your best friend really exists? Because you feel them? Your brain collects all your sensory input, so if something is wrong with your brain, there's no way to really know. Its a concept that goes straight into The Matrix and other similar movies/books. I mean, can you imagine what it would be like, if you couldn't tell the difference between what was real and what wasn't? What can you think of that could possibly be worse then that? I've got a few ideas, but not many. While the movie doesn't portray everything correctly, I think it does give you a good idea of what it would be like from Nash's perspective.

I'll agree with that any day. Too bad we humans are usually too egotistical and stubborn. That's another group of people I know little about, Muslims. Sure, I know all the media garbage about terrorists and whatever, but they don't tell you much about the normal, everyday followers of Islam. Just the radical ones. I suspect that Islamic followers as a whole are much better then the American media portrays them, and I wish I had the chance to talk to somebody who wasn't trying to get me to watch a news broadcast so they get paid.

hmm... why did you put 5.625 Euro? Why not round to 6? Anyway, I have no idea how much you would pay as a Catholic. I do know that tithing for Mormons is 10%. This seems a small thing to me, as tithing pays for my church building (good), temples (good), supplies (like paper for our church building, also good), and many other such things. And if you really break it down, what good is that money? From a spiritual perspective, zero. From a more financial perspective, it's not going to break the bank, and considering we don't drink or smoke, we end up equal with the rest of the world anyway. From a poor man's perspective, zero, considering the church gives aid to poorer families and is also known for its fast and complete responces in emergencies. And tithing isn't something we push with new converts, its not like anybody's trying to convert you for your money. As for the report, I don't need them to tell me in great detail where every dime I gave them ended up. Nor do I desire to spend my time looking over the very large book that would end up containing it, and I certainly wouldn't wish the job of compiling that book upon anyone. Do you so distrust your church leaders that you simply must know what they are doing? Well I'm glad somebody thinks so! I've actually noticed a decline in some of those sorts of churches, at least on the large scale anyway. Methinks people are getting a little wise to it. At least, I hope people are getting wise, rather then the churches simply getting better at getting away with it (so I never hear about them).

Wow, did this topic ever change direction... then again, I suppose I did title it 'religion... and stuff', so perhaps discussion on Marie Curie does sort of fit. To answer Zarkonacas: I'm not from Utah, I'm from South Dakota. I am planning to go on a mission soon, but have not left yet. I'm not out to convert anybody with this discussion, and I'm sorry if you (or Omotesenke) are taking my posts as such an attempt. When I read your last post, it sounded to me like you are either trying to convince yourself of what you say, or that you don't know much of what you're talking about and are making things up. In either case, you haven't said anything new or particularly noteworthy from your other posts, so I'm going to assume that by answering your points I would thus engage myself in a never-ending argument, from which there is no escape. Not to offend, but I think I'll avoid that by not responding in depth. There is no such thing as a 'virtual mission'. I do this for fun, I enjoy discussions and I enjoy hearing people's viewpoints on such heavy issues as religion and politics. Should religion be based on facts, when no religion can be proved? Should you always ignore your feelings? ("Search your feelings Luke, you know it to be true..." As a StarWars site, I'd almost feel bad if I didn't put that in here ) The LDS church is not based soley upon feelings, but we do not view scientific fact as the method to prove ourselves correct in spiritual matters. There is too much that can't be proven, so we have fun looking at the facts without taking much stock in them. Lets face it, science is always redefining itself and its outlook. A religion shouldn't do that. If you feel good when you aren't praying, then you're not praying to the right person. I feel good when I pray, and empty when I don't. To echo Mitth, missionaries don't receive training to manipulate. Have you ever met a missionary? Come on, most of them are young guys just out of high school, nervous and without much real-world experience. Seriously, they aren't much for manipulators. Most of the time they're doing good if they can speak the language fluently; many missionaries go to another country and have only three months to learn the language. Browsing the internet is a good way to gather information... if you can find an objective report. Religion and politics are not topics just overflowing with objective reports. With everything you read or see, you have to decide if the writer is making things up or putting a bad spin on things, taking them out of context or leaving out information. When you don't have any other source of information, you can get a pretty skewed version of the story. I don't recommend online research into LDS doctrine because my experience is that the writers are trying to demonize us, or simply don't know what they are talking about. Not long ago I saw a site that had critical points of our doctrine wrong, not on purpose but simply because they didn't know what our doctrine was. They gathered their information from other sites that also didn't know. Much better to talk to a member if you have questions, and that way you can avoid 'those manipulative missionaries'. Ah, you obviously missed the earlier post about looking smart by posting big things that nobody reads... Honestly, I can get a little wordy sometimes. Call it a weakness, but if I try and cut it down people just get confused. I'm not the best writer in the world. Ok, so we have a few atheists who have posted some thoughts, some sort of combination of ex-catholic/ex-mormon, and then the mormon guy (aka me). What about the rest of you? I like how nobody has broken down into outright anger and random name-calling. Who else has some thoughts on religion? I'd really like to talk to a Buddhist, but sadly I've never met one. I always hear about the other major religions, but never Buddhism. And hearing from a believer is better then others like me who have studied it a little but believe it. They're much more knowledgeable

It will be hard to find, given the game's age and low number of players. Myself, I'd check Ebay, but they will have to ship it, no downloads there.

So what you're saying is... if I put up really, really big posts, then everyone will assume I'm smart without ever actually reading them? hmm... this merits additional thought... There have been a few religions that didn't set themselves up at some point or another for personal gain. I've heard nothing to suggest such activity in Buddhism, for instance, nor is there such activity in the LDS church. I will assume there are others as well, particularly the smaller ones. But the sad fact is that most of the time, give men authority and they will abuse it eventually. Its evident in all areas of life, religion, politics, military, ect.

Ack... er... *twich* Perhaps I will try harder to perfect my posts, at least when I'm correcting the AKmiral... (strange line running through my head; 'Correct the AKmiral and you yourself will be corrected')

Ah, now that helps a little. One of the statements on the site is particularly noteworthy, so I'll repeat it here: "But discrepancies in the copied illustrations were an early clue to Egyptologists that the Mormon prophet may not have understood the ancient Egyptian language." Dang right he didn't. Joseph Smith didn't know much of anything about Egyptian writing. The guy had hardly any formal education, nothing really beyond elementary school. He didn't translate anything, he merely wrote down what he was told to write from the spirit. It comes down to faith and prayer as to whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet; if you believe he was then his 'translation' of the scroll is the correct one, and if you don't believe he was then there's absolutely nothing I can say or do to change your mind. There are several things that just can't be explained by the mind with the knowledge we have, and while this may seem like an easy way to weasel out of answering, that's not what I'm trying to do. You can't understand really understand love until you've felt it in your heart; this is similar, something that can only be understood through experience with the Holy Ghost. I'm going to be brutally honest. Did you join the church because you believed it, or did you join for the girl? Don't answer the question, just think about it honestly. I don't want to know your answer. But if such a small thing as a few DNA tests can make you quit a religion, then you must not have had a strong testimony in the first place. I've never seen the study, but have heard much about it. We don't know if the Lamanites, who were originally from Israel, had Asian blood in them. We again don't know if or how much they intermixed with groups from Asia. We do know that all the Native Americans left has at least some Lamanite blood, making it safe to say they are all 'Lamanites'. To go beyond this you go beyond my limited understanding of American history, migrations to it, and migrations from Asian peoples into the Israel region. A noble outlook. I too try and do this, but like you I'm sure I've said something offensive along the way.

I thought that was mostly just to get Anakin thinking about the Dark Side as being a viable way to save Padme's life (he was having those nasty dreams/visions, after all). That is a quote worthy of awards. Hall of Fame!

What, I'm not allowed to AK the AKmiral? Actually, I was wondering what line in your siggy meant. Makes good sense now.

Eh, the lists aren't perfect. No big surprise there, considering they weren't made by anybody here. In fact, I don't even know who made the lists. Putting the Huttese list in alphabetical order isn't hard to do. Just copy/paste into another program (say, Excel or Word, or Open Office) and have it reorder them. Copy/paste back into the text file, and presto! I would have done it myself, except I can't upload onto their server, so it wouldn't have made any difference for you guys.

Yay! An atheist who actually admits to never having read the Bible!! :Bows in respect to Mr. Honest Atheist: I've met many an atheist, and most will claim they've read every major religious text known to mankind... yet when they talk about them, its fairly obvious that in reality, all they read is the anti-religion stuff online. Although I must admit, one guy in my school was an atheist and probably had read every major religious text known... Dead Sea Scrolls (check) Quoran (check) Bible (check) various Hindi books (check) Book of Mormon (partially read, so half-check) ect. ect. I've come to realize arguing religion isn't going to get anybody converted any-which-way, even if you're trying to do so. Arguing just makes people defensive. So when I argue/debate religion, I don't even bother to make such an attempt. If they are thinking of joining us wacky Mormons, they aren't likely to argue. So if anybody gets the impression I'm trying to convert them, I apologize.

Yes and no... 'Zahn' or 'Zan' is actually closer to how I pronounce it. None of that "sckan" or "skan" junk for me. Though it definately is spelled 'Xan'... Promoted? meh? haha, I'm an officer now! You must all call me sir! Well, unless you're higher ranking then I am. And most of you are. hmm... oh well, I still get better pay as an officer, right?

Ah... Tiberian Sun. Good game, though not as good as the Earth 2150 series (in particular I liked the game Lost Souls). Metal Fatigue is still my favorite of that genre though, dispite the fact that hardly anybody knows it even exists. I thought the point of a cutscene was to show part of the storyline, and in a way as to gather as much attention as possible. Better graphics will draw the most attention. So why cut out the good cutscenes? Making games cheap isn't worth sacraficing quality.

I actually think it makes more sense for jedi to be married. Really, its better to have it out in the open then have those who would hide it *cough* Anakin *cough*. And because the Force runs in families, it makes more sense for jedi to have kids.

Hmm... what's this Garogg incident you speak of? I must not be paying enough attention, I didn't know there were any books written after the YV war yet. Don't suppose you know authors or titles?

Just ask me in a few years. I'll be a billionaire by then, making more money then I know what to do with. And if you ask, I'll be sure and give you some. How's a few million sound?

JKII and JKA were not the same game. If nothing else, JKA wouldn't even run on my computer until I upgraded away from a 64 MB graphics card. Obviously they changed something... What I'd like to see is a return to JK's cutscenes instead of the rediculous ones from Mysters/JKII/JKA. I literally cringe every time I see their boxy hands touch anything, their pixelated mouths move. And the JKII scene with the kiss... *shudder*. Throw in some halfway decent Sith storyline, a good storyline for the regular Jedi, and combine it with the gameplay of JKA, and you'd have a good sequel. Perhaps the first good sequel...

Ah, and now the real reason for why I moved this discussion away from the other thread... previously when I spoke in a forum about being Mormon, somebody either attacks my faith or raises questions. I didn't want to hijack the other thread, and that's what would have happened... First I'd like to point you back to my previous post (that one was in the evolution/creation poll thread) which states that a religion shouldn't be chosen based upon facts. Part of what makes it religion is that there isn't enough proof to be taken as science. I should also point out that I'm not a great speller, but will do my best to spell things correctly. With that in mind, I'll answer as best I can. The Lamanites are one group of what became Native Americans. There were several groups that came across, but we only have records from a few (only two that I can think of off the top of my head). These two records make mention of other groups. Because the Lamanite record ends with the destruction of the Nephites (it was actually a record of the Nephites and Lamanites, but with the death of the last prophet no one was left to write), we don't know how much intermixing there was among groups, nor do we know how many Lamanites were left after the wars that destroyed the Nephites. The second group of which we have records was the Jaradites, who managed to completely destroy themselves, save one man. It isn't too much to assume that the remaining Lamanites (including the descendants of the last Jaradite) mixed with other groups in the area, possibly those who came from Asia. To be honest, I don't know which book you are refering to. I'd need more information, a link to a source, something, to be able to say much here. I'd hardly compare "blacks" to orcs from Lord of the Ring. Such a comparison will get all sorts of people breathing down your neck... To clarify, being black is not a curse. Cain was cursed with dark skin, the reason being simply to set him apart. The Lord wanted His people to be able to distinguish themselves from Cain and his descendants. This was to prevent intermixing. Not because intermixing races is bad now or even then, but because their culture was. In keeping the people seperate, the Lord kept His people from being assimilated into their culture or from assimilating ideas from their culture, the biggest being the ideas and practice of idolitry. To read up on this, check out the Old Testament stories of Abraham and Lot (Lot being the one who ended up nearly being swallowed up by the Cainanites and having most of his family and all his posessions destroyed as a result). Joseph Smith actually gave a black man the priesthood. He then received a revelation that he wasn't supposed to do that, and that it would later be allowed when the time was right. Why 1977 was the right year, I don't know, but that's when Pres. Kimball was told we could give the priesthood to black men. You should take into account that we were among the first churches to grant this right, and more importantly, one of the only churches that never segregated; i.e. most churches wouldn't even let blacks attend church, they had to have seperate congregations. This was never an issue with us. Which Navoo temple are you refering to? The old one which was left behind by the saints when they moved west (and was destroyed/vandalised/ect by those who had chased them out) or the new Navoo temple, built just recently? I've seen the Navoo temple, my parents even went to its dedication. I don't recall seeing a pentagram. In addition, I'd hardly say that 'much of our buildings' would be an accurate description of one temple. There are over 100 temples throughout the world and litterally hundreds of thousands of church buildings. You're right, the Catholic Church does have the cross everywhere. Why would we want to constantly remind ourselves of a symbol of death? That is, after all, what happened on the cross, is it not? Now before you get yourself in a knot, I know that Catholics don't view the cross as a symbol of death. But the most important thing isn't that Christ died on the cross, its what He did before that. In the Garden of Gethsemane (sp?), where the Atonement actually happened. Mormons don't view the cross as such an all-important symbol, and as such there is no reason to display it everywhere. I have read the D&C. You read it incorrectly. It says that if Joseph lived to the age of 85, he would "see the face of the Son of Man". Joseph Smith didn't live to be anywhere near 85, nor does it say whether this is a reference to the Second Coming, a vision, or if he lived that long that he would then die and thus see Christ. In fact, if you read verse 16, Smith even speculates to this end. Assuming you were refering to Deuteronomy (I can spell it only because I'm looking right at it... ), then you take things out of context. The chapter discusses two prophets, the first being 'Prophet' and the second being 'prophet'. The first is a reference to Christ, who obviously had the gift of prophesy. The second is talking about telling the difference between real and false prophets. Am I to take it that if Joseph Smith was a prophet, he would have lived forever? How come Moses isn't still around then? What about Adam or any of the other prophets? The Lord will protect a prophet, or any other person, if their faith is sufficient and if they need to be protected. Joseph Smith had sufficient faith, but he was not necessary for the continuation of the church. He had already accomplished his most important mission, and his death was arguably the best thing to happen at the time for the early saints. Surely not the way anyone wanted it to happen, but the mobs believed that once Smith was killed, the church would fall appart. So when he died, the tension eased up on the saints, allowing them the chance to move west. How many 19 yr old guys do you know who are both capable and willing to have a discussion like this? Trust me, I wouldn't believe what I do if I hadn't thought about it a lot, read a lot of scriptures, done lots of studying, and most importantly, lots and lots and lots of praying. I happen to know my ward clerk, he and I are good friends. So yes, I do trust him, and I know and trust all the other people who come into contact with the money at my local ward. In addition, all these people have their own jobs and are not supported in any way by the church. This means they are less likely and less able to move money to where it shouldn't be. They are also only in their positions for a few years; a ward clerk normally is released from his position and called to a new one after 3-5 years. This further reduces oppertunity (and temptation). As for higher up the chain, I know and trust the people who work with money at the stake level (sort of a regional or district level). They are also unpaid volunteers. They too don't stay in their position forever, but are released and called to do something else after a few years (a little longer this time, perhaps 6-10 years). Keep going up and you will eventually reach a level where the people are not volunteers. I still trust them, even having never met them. How many scandals involving Mormons and such things do you know of? Sure there are a few, but not enough to make me worry about it any more then I worry about walking across the street. So to you I would ask this question: Do you feel better because you can see an end-of-year report about your church's finances, or do you honestly not trust the people in charge of the money? And more importantly, what makes you think they'd tell you if they used it in a way you wouldn't approve of? Wouldn't they just leave that off of the report? I'm not trying to say you're distrusting, but I really don't know why I'd even want such a report. Hmm... sarcasm, or serious? I personally kinda like how we are threatened by the fallout of supernovas, considering it hasn't happened. Isn't it nice to know somebody is looking out for us? In any case, the complexity of life (aka 24 hour continouos slaughter of life) is also something I find particularly interesting. What a beautiful, complicated, and wonderous world we live in... (do I sound like a priest yet? No? Dang, better try harder). Seriously, wouldn't it be a little boring if we all sat around eating grass? No lions or tigers or bears? Oh wait, grass is alive too. Ok, now we have to absorb sunlight (or find another means of obtaining energy without consuming something, like say thermal vents). Much less interesting, and then we'd loose many of those wonderful parables people like to repeat! You know, the ones about a man walking in the woods when he comes upon a tiger and... Nope, just getting ready to leave. Should happen around June... don't worry, you'll hear about it. (Dang, this has got to be the longest post since... since... well, I dunno. Just since!)

Ok, I lied. I will post here. But only to point you to my actual responce, found here.

A carry-over from the creation/evolution thread... whatever you wanted to say there, say here, as now its on topic! Not trying to be smart (or a jerk for that matter), but I'm going to guess you don't know too much about most religions. Most people don't know squat about religion. If you are a rare person who has studied some religions, I'd still guess you don't know much about many (there are dozens of major religions, after all). It may not be that you find all religions flawed, but perhaps you simply need to look around a bit more before finding one you like. And of course, as a Mormon I'd recommend checking us out... Though a warning for you; most websites about Mormons are waaaay out there. Best to find an actual person and ask them, the web isn't so reliable for fact-finding regarding religion. Too many heated arguments. Emm.. not trying to offend, but isn't your religion yet another one that by it's virtue disables the rest of the planet from getting to heaven as non- subscribers? This notion has always humored me over the years given life on this planet predates the creation of thought. On the contrary. LDS doctrine (the more official name for Mormon doctrine) teaches that you must be a member to reach heaven. But unlike all other religions I know of, you get a second chance. It really isn't very fair to require everyone to be a member, considering the large number of people who never had the chance to hear anything about Christ, much less LDS doctrine. After a person dies, they go to a 'spirit world' per se. Basically something to do between then and when Christ comes again (which will begin the ressurrection and judgement). While there they are taught and given the option to 'become members'. Even if you were to die just before the Second Coming, you'd still have at least a thousand years during the Millenium, allowing you plenty of time to decide.

I'll second that!

I agree and disagree with you, Adm. Toguro. From a scientific standpoint, religion is flawed. But religion isn't science, and to judge it thus would be to undermine what religion fundamentally is, you would be turning it into science. I gave up a long time ago trying to justify and prove religion based upon the laws of science, not because it has to be that way, but because by the time anyone has proof of any religion, it will be far too late to make the choice to join that religion. Sometimes facts are nice, but they should not be what makes you decide for or against a religion. It should be how it makes you feel and what it teaches, not how many believers there are or how much physical evidence there is to support it. I suppose I've probably launched a religious discussion, didn't I... alright, no more posting for me in this topic.