I was going to post this in Belle's thread on "Religion Threads," but that would be quite unfair to sidetrack it so severely. So, I've made my own.
It's a rant. I'm a troll. Something she said (and, I acknowledge that she said it with all due love and fairness) ticked me off:
Belle,
I agree completely with your first point--discussing religious & worldview beliefs is an important way to gain consistency in your beliefs.
Wasn't it Socrates who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living"?
[So far, so good]
But something Belle wrote about in the second part of her post got to me. I've seen this stated elsewhere, and seen it and debated it IRL:
Person "A" asks God "B" question "C". Person "D" asks God "B" question "C".
God "B" provides answer "E" to person "A" God "B" provides answer "NOT-E" to person "D"
If this isn't enough to call the objectivity of God into question, then there's just nothing left. Faith becomes blind faith, and unexamined faith.
Either person "A," or person "D," or both are WRONG. God's responses are either purely subjective, are 50% probable to be subjective (chose your own favorite percentage, by all means), or are totally hallucinatory and self-induced.
Remember the mother who was just declared legally insane after she killed all of her children? She said:
quote:God told me to kill my children
So she was right, then? And not insane?
--DOG
[edited for spelling, only]
[ April 13, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
God may have told her to kill her children, but we believe he would have sent an angel to stop her. So I don't know which god she's talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
pooka...I'm so glad you're here.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That gets sorta sticky. So anything bad that happens when people feel they have been commanded by god, are not actually commanded by God, but some delusion?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
DOG: Really. Why is your only option either they're all right, or they're insane? What if there are some that are right, and some that are wrong? And alot of people get confused and think God is telling them to do something, when really it's just their own desire keeping them from hearing the truth. Not that I claim to know which is which, but I've definitely done things I though God would want me to do, but then realized it was just ME that wanted me to do it. Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially when people don't know God well enough to really recognize his voice.
And mack, I think that most people wouldn't dream of saying that they can tell when God is really speaking to someone and when he isn't. That's too much responsibility for most people.
My opinion is that if God REALLY told you to kill your kids (not that he would) that doesn't mean he would stop you from having any repurcussions.
"Okay, fine lady, God told you to do it. We're locking you up anyway."
[ April 13, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm just talking biblical precedent. But subtracting the religious element, what's the difference between a delusional person that brings about great good and one who brings about apparent bad? Who is more delusional, Stalin or Kennedy? Both envisioned the world very differently from the majority.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just because some people legitimately hear from God, doesn't mean that other people can't come up with ideas and THINK they are from God. Those people are wrong. Andrea Yates was insane and I do not believe God actually told her to kill her kids. She may have been under influence by something in the spiritual realm, it could very well have been a demon whispering in her ear. It wasn't God because we know it is contrary to His will as he defines it in the scriptures. Christ was the final sacrifice and blood sacrifices would no longer be required. God will never repeat the order he gave to Abraham. He will not require us to kill our children.
What I tried to point out (and failed, because I see that my actual intended point didn't get made) is that God can tell people different parts of a universal truth, and that both of those people can be right, but can on the surface disagree because they don't know the whole truth.
When it comes down to it, to use homosexual marriage again as an example, God's commandment is for us to love one another. I think those that approve homosexual marriage have love in their hearts for the people involved. I also think those that oppose it can have love in their hearts for the people involved (granted they don't always, sometimes hatred and bigotry is the motivating factor, not love) So, the person that disagrees with me on homosexual marriage and I are really ending up in the same place - loving our neighbors. And that is what God intends. It's just that I view expressing love as pointing out what I believe to be a sin, and the other views acceptance of something they don't see as a sin to be the expression of love.
*sigh* Once again I can't really express what I mean well. I'm not trying to say that both of us can be right - there is an actual truth, that we will know someday. And yes, one of us will be wrong and the other right, but it may not be possible for us to determine that with our limited knowledge and experience while we're on earth.
On second thought I think I'll just delete the thread, it's only going to cause confusion because it's even confusing ME now. I guess my 2 AM revelations don't translate well to being written down. *sigh*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have a lot of trouble with religion. Maybe it's the emphasis on the afterlife that bothers me. It seems to neglect this life and the joys and pleasures (having nothing to do with hedonism, large quantities of sex, but more with the joy of it all, breezes, trees, the scent of flowers and the warmth t hat fills your chest when you love a person) for something that may or may not exist. That could be real, or just an illusion. Does it truly matter? To me, spirituality is internal and private and religion seems to be more about groups, society, packs of people and their shared beliefs. Some of which can be unhealthy and contribute to the prejudice that we've had in the past and need to get rid of somehow. But as long as the same beliefs circulate without analysis or thought how can things change? Take for example, things like honor killings or people abandoning a child of theirs for being gay. Why doesn't it ever occur to these people that killing a daughter for looking at a man outside of the family or leaving your child to fend for themselves when they need you is worse than homosexuality or a loss of honour?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Andrea Yates is verifiably mentally ill on a biological basis. I could use a neurological basis to partly explain why should would have delusions of commandments from god.
Also--if I heard the voice of god it would scare the CRAP out of me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish you wouldn't Belle, because it's an interesting perspective... It wouldn't scare me... but strange and impossible things have been happening to me for at least a year...
[ April 13, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Belle I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you but I think you are explaining yourself pretty darn well.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow, Synth, you really think that religious people don't enjoy life? That's really sad.
I stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon and cried. I thought, what a wonderful testament to God, what glory he will receive, that he created this amazing world.
I can't BELIEVE you think we never smell flowers, or enjoy the breeze, or fall in love, or whatever else it is you said. That's terrible.
mack:
quote: Also--if I heard the voice of god it would scare the CRAP out of me
I think it would scare me too. I never HEAR anything, mostly I just KNOW it, or think I do.
[ April 13, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
You can examine a religion for internal consistency, but a faith vs. atheism debate is ultimately futile.
Analysis and comparsion requires a criteria. Criterias require values. All our values are derived from one fundamental First Principal (FP). If my FP is logic and your FP is faith, we can have a lot of fun together but there is no way we can resolve our differences.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Wow, I'd never think that of religious people. Like any person, religious folks are equally as capable of being happy or unhappy in or with life and in the enjoyment of it.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
No, I said I think that at least 50% of them are insane.
Now all I have to do is find out which 50%.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*frustrated* That isn't what I meant..... How do I put it... maybe if someone has read His Dark Materials they'd know what I mean...
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
See, I THOUGHT I knew what that right path was.
Now I don't.
No clue.
Very disillusioned.
Actually, the by proxy baptism thread has sent me more screaming running away from religion.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess someone more on the scale of Andrea Yates would be Ernest Shackleton, who lost his ship in Antarctica during WWI. So he has about 20 men and 3 lifeboats, and manages to spend 16 months in Antarctica and return them all alive. The situation was so dire, no one seriously considered sending a rescue party.
What makes him comparable is that he decided they would not ever stockpile food for the winter, because he felt it was more important for the men to have the expectation of getting out before winter than to have adequate stores. How insane is that?
Anyway, I don't [edit] know what you mean [/edit] that Andrea Yates was delusional. There may have been treatments that could have helped her. But I don't believe that she was actually psychotic. In her arrest interview she didn't seem confused about the facts.
[ April 13, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
If you don't believe she was psychotic, what DO you believe?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What is the by proxy thing? Is that baptism for the dead?
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
In the bible, isn't the devil known to take different forms. I mean, if Lucifer really wants to tempt all of humanity into damnation, it would be more effective if he looked good while doing it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
(yeah)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
HAHA! I'm arguing on the internet!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How do I put it... maybe if someone has read His Dark Materials they'd know what I mean...
See, I thought His Dark Materials was a perfect example of misrepresenting how religious people can take joy in this life. So I'm not sure why it helps your explanation.
Dagonee
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Belle,
Please don't delete your other thread, it made an excellent point.
I sidetracked things here so the intent of your other thread could stay sound.
Was it you or your friend who was opposed to homosexual marriages? I think you said it was her. What if she was having demons whispering in her ears? How could she tell? How could you? If the gods and demons whispering in your ears are just telling you what you already know or believe, how do you know it's not...just...you?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I believe she was depressed, anxious, and ultimately influenced by Satan (as all people are to one degree or another every day). I know she had been getting treatment and meds prior. There was some talk about suing her doctors. She was very dominated by her husband and repressing her rebellious feelings. But she knew the facts. She was not like the lady who was trying to baptize her newborn and drowned it.
But the question of whether someone's seemingly spiritual experiences come from God, Satan, or their own heart is a compelling one. Again, I say one can removed the religious figures and still have puzzling neuroses.
[ April 13, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*raises eyebrow*
You do realize that the mentally ill were thought to be possessed or be touched in the head, as it were, and treated as such?
That she was depressed, but suffered from a serious form of depression called major depression with psychotic features?
Repressing her rebellious feelings? We talking psychoanalytic theory?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And yes, they can, influenced by abnormalities in neurology still being studied.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Synesthesia, a mild mental disorder or mystism? I've given up religion, but I can't give up the notion.. of... there being something... Mainly because of the impossible things that keep happening to me.. Making me wonder if it's mental illness or something else.. It's confusing, so I really shouldn't talk about it. But back to HDM. It's not like I don't believe in the posibility of an afterlife. I just wonder if it really, truly matters. I think it's more important to worry about this life and how to make things better for people on Earth... Heaven, if it exist in my view can wait. But I really want heaven to be a large library with every book written and some that don't even exist yet. And until I can find a better way to express my views about these things I think I should retired from such discussions.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
DOG, get ready to classify me as one of your 50% insane because I am quite sure demons have whispered in my ear.
I firmly believe in the concept of spiritual warfare and I believe that we battle not against flesh and blood but spirits.
If you've ever done any research into spiritual warfare (and good reliable sources are hard to find, it ranges from folks who think every single thing in the world can be attributed to demonic influence to those that think demons can't affect our world and I believe the truth is in the middle) you'll know that when you aren't sure where the voice is coming from, you test it.
You see if the voice is telling you something consistent with scripture and that it is something that will lead to the ultimate glory of God.
Satan is the great deceiver, he's a very accomplished liar and he'd be pretty ineffective he appeared with spooky music and horns and smoke around him. He comes at you with twisted truths, that are easy to believe. Sometimes it takes work to make certain where your guidance is really coming from.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not like I don't believe in the posibility of an afterlife. I just wonder if it really, truly matters. I think it's more important to worry about this life and how to make things better for people on Earth...
And it would be impossible to say that almost all religions, in there better moments, are not dedicated to making things better for people on Earth.
However, some things matter based on the time frame. A tendency to snap at others when irritated that gets worse over the course of a 70-year lifetime may not matter too much in the scheme of things. Such a trend extended to eternity may matter more than many other things.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Belle,
Because I couldn't e-mail you and now that I am sure you are still reading this thread...
I, for one, thought you were doing wonderfully in the other thread. I am sorry I didn't encourage you more, because I really liked where it was going.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Mack, I'm not saying the insane are possessed, I'm saying that all people all the time have good choices and bad choices.
And I don't mean "repressed" in any technical freudian sense. You know I'm just a layperson. Pretend we are on the jury. Why do you think she didn't know right from wrong?
Trust me I know the problems that come with hormones. I'm in the middle of being completely unable to trust my feelings whilst trying to make a major decision (should I get a job). It's very uncomfortable.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm still thinking about the statement regarding religious folk not allowing themselves to enjoy the world in favor of the longterm. I have to make one more point, and it's this.
I have always figured that we enjoyed life MORE because we see it from a much larger perspective. You may see a lovely flower and consider it's beauty and the magic of how nature and life work, but when I see it I think of the perfect balance of life, the way that God created things juuuust so, to give us an amazing corporeal experience. I think about how that flower fits into the grand scheme of things, and that everything that ever happened or existed fit perfectly into God's plan. It's hard to explain because it's isn't a one-time set of thoughts that go through my head when I see something pretty. It's an entire worldview. I see a Pepsi can and marvel at how God created humanity and nurtured us until we grew and formed our technology. I try to see it from God's perspective, watching his children grow and smiling proudly at our accomplishments. We are so excited at the things we make everyday, at our inventions and innovations, as if nothing else matters, just like little children. We show off our artwork to everyone around us, and God sticks it to his refrigerator with a magnet. He has the Oval Office and open-heart surgery, liquid nitrogen and lederhosen.
I always felt sorry for the people that saw life from the ground, exactly as it "is" and nothing more. I know that's unfair, because I don't really believe that people who aren't religious don't think about things more cosmically than that, it's just that I believe that nothing could be more magnificent than the creation the way God intended it, used for his glory and other purposes that we can't see or understand.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote: A tendency to snap at others when irritated that gets worse over the course of a 70-year lifetime may not matter too much in the scheme of things. Such a trend extended to eternity may matter more than many other things.
Dagonee
Credit where credit is due, Dag... that's not properly documented
(just teasing)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The longitudinal studies on this topic are reeeeeally expensive.
Dagonee
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
Did this women actually believe she was hearing God/Devil or was this just an excuse..?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes, people are faced with good choices and bad choiced. However, psychosis renders you unable to MAKE good choices based on reason.
Do you want me to get into the neurological basis of it?
And part of the problem with all this is the stigma of mental illness as not quite "real"--as in, people still have a choice whether or not to be ill, whether or not to have certain emotions, whether or not to control delusions and impulses, and even when reason is taken away, be expected to act reasonably and logically.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Well I wish you hadn't deleted the other thread, as I was enjoying it.
I would be interested in any scriptural examples you could provide, Belle, that equate confronting-the-log-in-your-brother's-eye with an expression of love.*
To take on the bus metaphor mentioned earlier, do you see dkw as being on another bus on the same road? At what point do differences of opinion label someone as "just in another bus" vs. "got their attention snagged by something in the alley"?
*This is not to say that I don't believe you when you say that you believe your actions and faith are borne of love.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
I thought DOG was refering to the much more recent incident where the woman did claim God told her to kill her children.
It was in the news last week or the week before....
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
He was. But this has happened before.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But, PSI, that's how I view things in a way... It's difficult to explain it... I'm not an aethist who only believes in the visible or what can be proved. It's harder because I don't know what I really am in so many things... If I had a specific religion I could say, I believe this and that but not this... But if you have no specific religion... No real set world view.. If you are just on the edge of things.. Then how can that be explained? Mostly I think about the religions that are so strict that they allow no room for growth, for enjoyment, for sweet mistakes. That seems to lead to the extreme... blind hedonism which never helps anyone... Didn't I say I was retiring? Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not aware of that one. Do you have linkage?
Everything for me comes back to the manichean fallacy, that spirit = good and body = bad. That if I'm receiving something in my heart, it must be from god, and that if I'm feeling something with my body it must be from Satan (this is the form of the fallacy, I'm against it.)
The irony is that (at least in my theology) Satan choose not to have a body and can only influence spiritually. So, in my view, does the spirit of God. But the point is not that but what the individual chooses.
At least in the conversation with Mack, we are arguing how one knows whether one no longer has that ability to choose good instead of bad. My understanding of her position is that there are states where one can seem to grasp facts but are psychotic. My (admittedly old) view is that psychotic people will have some apparent dysfunction (not knowing where they are or what day it is, or who others are).
If simply doing something really bad excuses one from responsibility, do we feel anger or pity toward them? How horrible is so horrible that the person must have had something wrong with them to do it? Is this not all murder?
[ April 13, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Screwtape Letters contains an interesting discussion on how one of the devil's most successful accomplishments was the ability to corrupt desires to make attempts to satisfy them both sinful and non-pleasurable. I think there's a lot of truth to that.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Mostly I think about the religions that are so strict that they allow no room for growth, for enjoyment, for sweet mistakes.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, my religion does leave room for growth and mistakes, because if it didn't God would smite us down where we stand on a daily basis. But if you're referring to the "enjoyment" of doing something blatently sinful and then calling it a "mistake" then I can honestly say that I am at a point in my life where doing blatently sinful things don't even sound enjoyable. Not that I never sin, but only that I don't usually sin for the sake of sinning, or in order to say "I've done that". (Example, getting drunk or doing pot just once.) My feelings are that life holds so much enjoyment to keep me satisfied until I die that I don't even need to venture out into the "forbidden" stuff to enjoy myself.
NOT THAT I NEVER SIN.
But I can say that when I look back on myself when I was younger, I can see how God used my mistakes to teach me and help me grow. Being a Christian isn't about never screwing up. It's about learning from your mistakes and getting better. I'm only starting to get to point where I disdain my mistakes rather than get enjoyment from them. And I think that makes life BETTER.
I believe that every mistake we make puts up a wall that keeps us from some of life's enjoyment.
Example: The wild fling you have in your first year of college, losing your virginity to a sexy guy from Italy. It was fun and you are glad you did it, but then you'll never be able to enjoy the feeling of giving yourself to one man and one man only, and knowing he saved himself for you, and that your love will never be shared by another.
See what I mean? I think that both religious and non- have different types of fun and pleasure throughout life, but choosing one thing will often keep you from ever having the other. You just have to make a choice about which is more important to you. My personal opinion is that the choices of the Christian are less wild and exciting sometimes, but the pleasure lasts much longer and runs much deeper.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*blink*
Just because Andrea Yeats was mentally ill at the time of her crime does not excuse her from taking the consequences, and therefore responsibility of her actions. However, I do believe that she should not incur the death penalty, and should be remanded to a psychiatric hospital for treatment of her illness.
...just to give an idea of what I'm working with here.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
pooka to correct something, it isn't just hormones that are to blame for every chemical inbalance in the body. You are using "hormones" in way too broad a definition. There are all kinds of different biochemical classes of compounds that the body produces for chemical signals like seratonin and other stuff that aren't "hormones". I don't know if you can actually be more specific than "biochemcicals" I think "neurotransmitters" may be the broader term but I'm sure Mack will correct me if they aren't. Hormones though are a very specific chemcial class of compounds though.
AJ
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think neurotransmitters are a class of Hormone.
Mack, I guess I was unknowingly arguing the same point from a different direction.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Person A asks God question C and God responds E. Person B asks God question C and God responds E.
But person A and person B are different people, each with a very limited understanding of the universe, each with their own prejudices, suppositions, assumptions, and biases. Occasionally, each has their own illnesses as well.
This results in person A believing the E means F while person B believes E means G or H or Not-F.
Mean while person X doesn't listen for God's answer and assumes I or J, or seeking personal gain, states the answer is L or P.
Finally Y asks God question C in regards to Y's specific time, place circumstance, and God responds with E. Yet person Z, from a different time and place and circumstance asks the same question and God answers with F. Y and Z then take their specific answers and assume that since God in infinite and perfect, those answers must be also infinite and perfect, not related to Y and Z's specific time and place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I believe she was depressed, anxious, and ultimately influenced by Satan (as all people are to one degree or another every day)."
I have trouble imagining that God would allow a demon to "influence" people in this manner, when He Himself considers free agency to be of primary importance. If He won't talk to people because He thinks it eliminates their free will, why would He allow a demon to do so?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay. Neurotransmitters (such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine) are only sent a short way, talking to only a few neurons at a time. Hormones, however, are broadcasters that are sent out all over the body and received by cells that are "tuned in" for that particular hormone.
Hormones can influence neurotransmitters and vice versa. Such as the influence of high estradiol and progesterone on the serotonin 3 receptor (5-HT3), which is responsible for nausea--causing fluctuations in how much 5-HT3 is released by those receptors.
Hallucinations occur during periods of increased activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, and parts of the cortex--including the auditory cortex, responsible for hearing.
The hippocampus is largely responsible for influencing the release of stress hormones (as part of the limbic system, also including the hypothalamus and amygdala, among other things). These hormones, such as cortisol and ephineprhine (adrenaline) are good in short bursts and actually aid in memory formation and ability to use working memory. However, prolonged stress builds up cortisol and has a detrimental effect on memory, both short and long term. Stress and exciting events bring about the burst of cortisol and epinephrine (and norepinephrine from the locus coreulus). Norepinephrine aids the prefrontal cortex in alertness and judgement and delayed task response. Epinephrine triggers the vagus nerve and sends this sensory/emotional information to the amygdala.
Emotions are behaviors triggered by feelings trigger by sensations and neurological interpretation of those sensations (dangerous or not? pleasurable or not?) Areas of the brain affected by emotions is a small area of the prefrontal cortex, the cingulate gyrus, and the angular gyrus (and the rest of the limbic system)...
I digress. What I'm say is that the brain is a fascinating and incredibly complicated organ. If parts of the brain receiving sensation are falsely activated, the other parts of the brain connected to it will respond accordingly, false stimulus or not (this is why we say that feelings associated with delusions/hallucinations are valid, despite the psychotic origination of the stimulus). If Andrea Yates is having auditory hallucinations, is delusional, the commandments in her brain that she hears (though we do not) are very real to HER, and her brain and body will react accordingly, especially if the stressful situation continues. If it does, then the affect on her judgement will continue to increase and ability to reason will deteriorate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dan, I think your response is perfect. I would only add to it that even taking the time and place of the questioners into account, two people will seldom, if ever, be asking he same question.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks for the info, Mack. I think a lot of my frustration comes from responding to something that is no longer happening instead of responding to what is happening.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I have trouble imagining that God would allow a demon to "influence" people in this manner, when He Himself considers free agency to be of primary importance. If He won't talk to people because He thinks it eliminates their free will, why would He allow a demon to do so?
I think God's influence and Satan's influence are both there, and people can choose to listen to whichever appeals most to them. When someone is very close to God or if God has a specific reason for it, He will speak to that person, either Himself, or through a messenger. If someone is already under Satan's influence, then they might actually hear him or those who work for him.
In my mind, that allows for free will. As people get closer to one or the other, they are more receptive to it.
Edit to add a reference from Book of Mormon:
2 Ne. 2: 16
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act• for himself. Wherefore, man could not act• for himself save it should be that he was enticed• by the one or the other
[ April 13, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dan, I like the way that you expressed that, but I think that it, as well as most of the other posts on this thread, ignores a very prevelant use of religion as a sort of "get out of justifying free" card. edit: In regards to your way of expressing it, I think that it's important to at least acknowledge the possiblity that the answers that each person gets back contain a dose of their own human failings and are not a pure message from the divine.
Far too often, religion has been used as a support for the worst of human nature. Even more often, in my opinion, it has been used as a support for the laziest of human nature. For example, because my religion is the ONLY TRUE ONE, I don't need to think any more about any of this stuff or consider that anyone else might have something to teach me. I honestly can't think of any other reason to have a "One True Church" orientation besides as an excuse to not think about things.
It seems to me, that many people, instead of acknowledging that there is a large amount of danger of mistaking their human impulses for religious ones, specifically flee this type of thinking. I would expect that there would be an especially strong attitude towards an open exploration human behavior among religious, and yet the opposite seems to be the norm in my experience.
I'm of the opinion that true religion doesn't provide answers as much as it does questions. It is the responsiblity of the person to work out the answers. The form that these answers take is life itself.
[ April 13, 2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Mr. Squicky, I thought more than one religiously-minded person here admitted that sometimes a feeling they thought came from God they later decided didn't.
If people are using the "one true religion" belief to not think or to justify their actions, I certainly don't condone that. I ponder my beliefs quite a lot.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmmm... long live the agnostics. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:
quote:Also--if I heard the voice of god it would scare the CRAP out of me
I think it would scare me too. I never HEAR anything, mostly I just KNOW it, or think I do.
Knowing that I had experienced the direct influence of God would scare the crap out of me. I do not trust my senses or my subconscious enough to interpret any feeling, or voice, or any experience at all as having come to me personally from God. Thinking I know would be just as bad.
-----
I agree with Syn. While many religious people do emphasize temporal beauty and living this life well, it seems that most religious discourse involves decrying other people's sins or hoping for salvation. I would rather live well and be a good person in this life and have nothing after death than do things because I expect any kind of eternal reward or fear eternal punishment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I honestly can't think of any other reason to have a "One True Church" orientation besides as an excuse to not think about things.
So, is every issue about philosophy an absolute? Because the only way the first post works is if it is.
And if it is, how is that any different from every other religion?
I love these kind of poorly-constructed statements.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
God?
Satan?
Possession?
None of those exist.
Belle, I imagine we all hear "voices in our heads" at some time or other in our lives.
I hear them all the time. They say things like, "DOG, you really shoudn't try to shake that candy machine just to get those Cheeze-Its out; it could fall over on you and kill you," and, "DOG, Sears is a BIG company. If they forgot to charge you for the sofa, so be it."
I recognize it as normal mental processes. Thoughts in the form of internal conversation.
David Berkowitz heard voices, too. Only he wasn't sane enough (apparently) to realize that they were his own, and he could ignore them if he so desired.
They're not the voices of God, or Angles, (or Angels, even), or Satan.
It's all...just...you.
Funny how you compare the suggestions of the voices to what you already hold to be true, in order to determine if what the voices are saying is true. It's an internal dialogue. It's a self-administered Rorschach Test.
quote:I love these kind of poorly-constructed statements.
John, am I going to have to tell you to go bite my ass again?
--DOG
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
BTW, John, whether God exists or not IS an absolute.
Or can there be half a God?
[edit for spelling]
[ April 13, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
DOG,
Since you seem to know the absolute answers to questions that mankind has wrestled with for thousands of years, could you tell me where all the individual socks that go missing from my dryer end up?
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
DOG, I have no problem with you believing that is true. But I believe in an afterlife. And assuming that belief is true, we can talk more about this then. Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Dag,
Duh! I've eaten all your socks!
Bad DOG!
Bev,
But I don't. I'm not going to be there to discuss this with you. To be honest, I don't think you're going to be there, either. I figure I'd work all this out now, while I can.
Oh, and so John L can get of his high horse: ALL OF MY STATEMENTS REPRESENT MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES MAY VARY (THANK GOD)
--DOG
BTW...what Squick says! Sorry, Squick; I hope you don't mind my agreeing with you.
[ April 13, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Hey DOG, I gotta question your assertion that religion is pointless. I could stipulate that for you personally it is pointless (not a slam, just an aquiesence)
In my opinion the search for purpose is what seperates us from animals. Obviously I have no factual basis for my conjecture that dogs, monkeys,... and so forth don't lie awake at night pondering the meaning of life but I believe it inherently. I'm entirely convinced that our inquisitive nature hardwires us to be predisposed to the need for religion. Whether you have faith or not is subjective but to me the desire/need is inherent in our thirst for knowledge.
[ April 13, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
DOG, of course you don't believe in an afterlife. And IF you are right, of course there will be no discussion.
My point is, IF I am right, THEN we will have something to talk about. Until then, yours is a belief as valid as mine. Don't dis mine, I won't dis yours.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
kat: I don't get it. If it depends on having seen "Lost in Translation" then that would explain it.
It's okay if someone wants to have a dialogue that presumes no God or Satan. I have trouble with folks who say there is a God but no Satan. Like Marianne Williamson. She creeps me out.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Dan,
In response to your version of my previous version of alphabet soup....
In many cases, sure: specific circumstances demand specific responses.
However, Belle's other post (the one that she, apparently, deleted) refered specifically to homosexual marriages. I will assume (I know it's a big step) that God would not say "OK" on a Monday, "Nope" on a Tuesday, and then "OK" again on Wednesday, etc., etc., etc., or else He's even more capricious then I would feel comfortable accusing Him of!
But I'll also invoke the "Child down a well" scenario. Some children who fall down wells survive. Others die. In this day and age of nationwide news coverage, all are prayed for. I would bet, too, that all the prayers are for the survival of the child. But, regardless of whether the child lives or dies, the outcome is always, apprently "God's Will." God's Will, it would seem then, is nothing more than random chance.
--DOG
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Either person "A," or person "D," or both are WRONG. God's responses are either purely subjective, are 50% probable to be subjective (chose your own favorite percentage, by all means), or are totally hallucinatory and self-induced
You were doing fine as you got to the first sentence here. But how are you jumping from that first sentence to the second?
Why does the possibility that a person's opinion of what God is telling them to do is wrong mean God's responses are totally subjective or anything like that. After all, there is also the possibility that science is wrong on any given issue, or that scientific data can be interpreted different ways. Is science also totally subjective?
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Bev,
I'm trying to walk a fine line between dissin' people's religions, and debating them.
My point of view (which is mine) is that there is no God, and that religions are purely man (and, perhaps women) made.
Unfortunately, in pursuing that tack, I have to propose that people who believe in God are mistaken. I don't see how I can have it both ways.
I think we should take a left at the next intersection. You think we should take a right. I'm really, really sure that we should take a left. No offense, but I think that if we go right, we'll get lost.
But as you said, we really won't know until we get to our final destination.
--DOG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I have trouble with folks who say there is a God but no Satan."
Why? What about a divine creator REQUIRES that He create some form of perverted evil dedicated to our destruction?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:kat: I don't get it. If it depends on having seen "Lost in Translation" then that would explain it.
Squicky's been funny enough often enough that I think if he ever quit kicking people while scrambling up the boulder in Hatrack King of the Hill, he'd be a lot of fun. And honestly, the textbook close-mindedness is so consistent I sometimes wonder if that persona is an elaborate April's Fools, because he's either not as smart as I think, or the whimsy you can occasionally see peeking through is a lonely stranger to the weary hostility that takes up the rest of the mental hard drive.
I used to flip out after the "Kick Me" posts, but Noemon kindly pointed out this still picture from Lost in Translation, saying her expression says more than I ever could. I agree.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
DOG, how is that any different than all the loved ones all over the world who are prayed over and either die or don't die? Death is not that big a deal to God, IMO. It is to us, and I think He is fully aware of the pain it brings us. Assuming God exists, He is not a God who has problems allowing His children to go through pain. I think that is one of the reasons many people have trouble believing in Him.
Edit: DOG, there is a big difference between saying, "I think you are wrong," and, "You are wrong!" I have actually had to explain this to my husband.
The first statement allows for the idea that you could, conceivably, be wrong. When it comes to beliefs, that is the only way to have a sensible discussion, IMO. You seem to claim to be privy to the "knowledge" that God does not exist. At least that is how it sounded to me. I am far more sympathetic to the agnostic point of view than the staunch athiest.
[ April 13, 2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't question the LiT picture because it had two hot women. Does a picture with two hot women need a point?
Dagonee
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:ALL OF MY STATEMENTS REPRESENT MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES MAY VARY (THANK GOD)
Then everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't insane? So, what you're basically saying is that it isn't just some "true or false" line of crap, aren't you? Because the whole problem with your shitty logic is that you demand a concrete and then fall back on maybe. So, either you're saying all such philosophies are absolute right or wrong, or man's subjective nature actually dictates varying levels, and no one really knows anyway.
I mean, come on. You're the one who called it pointless. Defend it. Are all such philosophies absolute? Is your own? You're saying that "religions" (and, by your explanation, only Judeo-Christian-Islamic, since not all have a single "God") are either absolutely right or (in your opinion) absolutely wrong, so there's no point to religion. Sounds like a back-assward Pascal's Wager, if you ask me. Back up your absolute statement, because I don't really care about your argument on the existence or non-existance of the divine. Try defending what you actually claimed instead of just using it as a poorly-constructed springboard for your attempt to 'debunk' (and, with your attempts, I use the term loosely) all religions.
Or just say what you mean: "I don't like religions. They suck." You'd be a whole lot more honest that way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But God didn't create Satan, Tom. At least not in the view I am proposing. Satan was a son of God who opposed free will or rule of law. I'm not sure which. There is actually not full agreement on this in Mormonism.
Some feel we would have come to Earth as hairless animals who lacked the ability to do wrong. Others feel that we simply never would have been given any laws or truth, and so wouldn't be responsible if anything bad happened.
Edit: Misplaced Paragraph break
[ April 13, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
I think religion is an important and integral part of our lives and society. it is only when people become overzealos and begin to FORCE not peruade or show but FORCE there beliefs onto someone else that it becomes anoying selfabsorbed bull stuff.
My friend is a native american from michigan, and he and his friends and family ritualy go to this place called a hot house, it is much like a saunna but earthier. While they were there praying(this is a holy site) a muslim man came in and asked if he could pray (aparantly he was soul searching), they told him yes. shortly after an eskimo, who had come to see off his sister on a spiritual journy, stopped in because he had heard this was a holy place. he asked if he could pray for his sisters well being on her journy before he left home for alaska. they promptly told him yes, of course. he asked if they would join him, they did. My friend said that the eskimo thought you could send affection through prayer, like a sort of long distance hug. well one person did say they recieved a sort of embrace, it was the muslim man, who said he could feel the warmth of a scared soul setting out, and he tried to comfort it.
the point of that longwinded and badly told story (my friend is a much better story teller) is that God TRANCENDS religion, and will show himself to all those genuinly seeking him.
It was C.S. Lewis who said (i'll paraphrase) that a man is hungary,therefor there is food, a man is thirsty, therefor there is water, a man has sexual desire, therefor there is sex. if men have this aparrent desire and feeling for spiritual fulfillment, then doesnt the law of nature prove there exists nourishment for this need?
He said it alot better than I, but maybe someone remembers better and could post it.
quote: this still picture from Lost in Translation, saying her expression says more than I ever could. I agree.
Thats flippin funny!
but anyway thats my big, selfabsorbed,know-it-all take on religion. this still picture from Lost in Translation, saying her expression says more than I ever could. I agree. -String
[ April 13, 2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: String ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But PSI.. I don't believe in wild flings, in hedenism and useless pleasure. I'm talking about the real thing. A sort of sweetness that fills you like sunlight. Some people can find it in religion, other people are disconnected from it because in their case religion can act as a wall, keeping it from this joy and truth. I liked what String said. It's close to my view of things. What every God is, it transcends religion or definition. Maybe definition isn't even nessasary... It just... is... But it's so hard to explain it! Maybe a Rumi poem would help...
And I dont' really believe in the concept of the devil... Prehaps because it makes me uneasy. It's so easy to blame the devil or even God for mistakes and temptation. It's up to human beings. They are the ones in control of themselves. No one forces people in must circumstances (sp) to do anything.
[ April 13, 2004, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Y'all bring up some interesting points, from all sides of the religion argument.
"No one forces people in must circumstances (sp) to do anything."
I somewhat agree with you on this point, Synesthesia. In my opinion, God/Satan/whatever doesn't force you to do things: However, you are presented the opportunity for things: Much like what torches can see in the Maker series (which I've been using more and more to reference things), there are endless paths to take, and every choice plants you on one, but opens up a plethora of new paths while you go further down the road.
I firmly believe that God made sure that both Bernard and I were in the booksigning line at the same time. I know this because while I was telling myself, "The line's too long, I don't want to wait in that", something else told me to go stand in it anyway. That if I didn't, I'd be missing out on something very big and important. I think that it was God 'wispering in my ear', now that I look back on it (espeically since my future husband was standing in front of me). Both of us initally weren't that thrilled about going to Presidental Classroom, but we both felt that it was something we needed to do, something important for our futures.
I believe that there is a spiritual war, for the sole reason because I have met people that I firmly believe are possessed by demons, and people that I firmly believe are guarded by angels. And I don't think God just sits back and doesn't care about us--I think that God allows the influence of Satan to test us, that's why He gave us free will. Sometimes, one wins and the other loses. Like DOG said, "I don't see how you can have it both ways."
DOG: You believe that I am mistaken. I believe that you are mistaken. In that respect, we can reasonably get along.
Just don't get mad when someone posts his own beliefs, when you started a thread posting your own. You stated your case, he's stating his. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if you think it's wrong.
[EDIT: For minor spelling and to complete a train of thought. My mind goes faster than my fingers.]
[ April 13, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: I honestly can't think of any other reason to have a "One True Church" orientation besides as an excuse to not think about things.
It was years before I realized that anyone thought differently, DOG, because I didn't (and still don't) think religious truth is different from other kinds. "One True Church" is no more strange than "One True History" or "One True Science". We may not be sure about what the truth is, but it's there, and there's only one of it, and it's not impossible that someone has it already.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But that concept makes no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around why if God is so omnipotent he'd not be able to read into people's mind's and hearts to understand what sort of people they are. Like the story of Abraham and Isaac. Why? It makes no sense. Bad things don't happen to people because of demons or what people have done in past lives. It's the weather of things... It's the way life is sometimes. I have trouble believing in such a God when it comes to wars and children suffering and another child going missing only to be found someplace dead... How can God allow something like that? So maybe there is no god, no demons, only human beings. Or maybe God is not what we think he, she or it is. Perhaps we are simply tools of God... polishing ourselves to do his, her or whatever's work... As to what that is though, since everyone and their mother can claim to be doing God's work even if they are doing things that are cruel and vile. How can we know the truth? More than one thing can be true at exactly the same time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, I honestly didn't see what I presented as existing in this thread or, in large part, in the other discussions of religion that I've participated in on Hatrack. I really haven't been around all that much lately, so I might have missed other threads where this came up. If I missed it here, could you point out to me where you thought it was?
I really try to take issue with ways of thinking and not specific people exactly for stuff like the second part of your post. I present what I see as happening and leave it up to people as to whether or not this thing exists and how they feel about it. I think that people use "One True Church" as an exclusion device and that this is bad thing. You agree that if people did that, it would be a bad thing, but don't necessarily share my perspective that this occurs. That's great. It helps us understand each other and where it is we disagree. If I could ask, what other role do you think that "One True Church" thinking plays and why do you think it plays such an important role in American religions (if you do think that it actually does so)?
I'm sorry if I went overboard trying to explain my motives. I'm not really around all that much and people that I have an antagonist history with, in this case (and many others) kat, that are both more central to this site and around a lot more than I am tend to try to paint my posts in as negative light as they can. Every once in a while, I feel the need to explain where I'm coming from, so as at least to give a competing viewpoint to me being a really bad person.
DOG, I'm afraid that you missed a big point of my post. I'm beginning think that this happens a lot. I was trying to be critical of your positions, albiet in a subtle way. Even though we agree that there are problems with mainstream religious thought, I think that there are wide disparities in our positions. I would never suggest either as simplistic or as negative an evaluation as I think you are doing.
Mabus, That's actually the way I approach it as well (with True Religion being pretty much like True Science, except without problems with logical contradiction), but that's exactly why I have a problem with what I see as the mainstream religious viewpoint. The central tenant of the search for scientific truth is the open evaluation of the available options. One of the rules of thumb that I've been taught is that you should be able to be familiar enough with the posiitons you disagree with to arge for them convincingly. For me, One True Church thinking seems to act as a way of specifically not needing to look at the other possible sources of truth. This may not be true in all cases, but it has been in my experience, and I was honest in saying that I really can't come up with another logical purpose that it would serve.
Just as a check on this, how much do you (general you here) know about ways of thinking about religion and spirituality that differ from yours? Could you make a good case for these other ways of seeing things, or do you just know why they are obviously wrong? I think that these are important questions for people to consider, especially in such an important area as religion/spirituality.
I do know that the few times I've brought other "weird" ways of looking at spirituality onto this site, I've been met with either derision or disinterest.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: How can we know the truth? More than one thing can be true at exactly the same time.
I think that is how most agnostics feel. But I am not sure about more than one thing being true at the same time.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Psst, Kat.
Right click on the picture, go to properties and link directly to the pic's address. That way, there's no distraction to the funny with all the hullabaloo around it.
BTW, in my introduction, I don't say that all--or even 50% of those who believe in God are insane. I say that If two people ask God the same exact question, and get two diametrically and meaningfully opposesd answers (or, as we know, claim to have received two such answers), then at a minimum ONE of them must be wrong.
Not insane. Wrong.
And then I proceded to say that either God's responses are subjective (yes, implying that they are not objectively real, but are, instead, "felt" by the person experiencing God's "answer") or that they are hallucinatory, or self-produced.
Still not using the "I" word.
When I made the reference to Andrea Yates, that was when I first introduced the concept of insanity. Please do note, however, that she WAS declared to be legally insane.
And regarding my apology for daring to make statements that smack of the absolute...to quote Belle (no offense, Belle, but yours was the first usable quote I found):
quote:Just because some people legitimately hear from God...
There's an absolute statement for ya! People legitimately hear from God. It states both that "God Exists," and that "People can hear Him speak to them." No ifs, ands, or buts.
And John, we get into the same pissy argument in every thread where we both contribute: I make absolute statements, you criticise me for making them, I apologize, you criticise me for apologizing (that is, when you actually recognize or acknowledge that I have apologized) and then you attribute additional negative, inflammatory opinions to me that I never espoused.
quote:Or just say what you mean: "I don't like religions. They suck." You'd be a whole lot more honest that way.
I didn't say that, and I don't intend to say it. For the most part, I don't believe it.
I believe this: There is no God.
I believe this: There is a beief in God.
I believe this: There is religion.
I believe this: Religions are created by people, for the betterment of people. Some succeed at this better than others. Some have lost their way. Some define "better" in a way that I find totally alien. Adherents of a given religion pretty much share a common core belief in whatever their particular God is.
I'm looking to explore, though discussion and debate, the worldview of "There is no God." It must, by its nature, confront the worldview that there is a God. I can pepper all my statements with a quick IMHO, but I thought we had all agreed here that it's all opinion. It's akin to prefacing all my statement with the phrase: "In English, one says..." As this discussion progresses (and when I'm not stealing time from my employer to type after lunch is over, or stealing time from my family when I'm supposed to be doing my taxes!), I will provide proof and substantiating pointers and data where I can.
Whether a God exists, or whether no God exists is an absolute. There are no half-ways. There are no half-Gods/half-not-Gods. Either a God exists that created the universe, or no such God exists, and the universe was created by some other mechanism.
Mayday,
I didn't realize I was getting angry at people for posting their beliefs. I may--and often will--disagree, and I realize I may get a little emotional/zealous about it, but I'll continue to try not to get angry over it. I do get pissed off at Leto (John L), though, when he starts in on his ad hominem attacks. I don't think he likes me too much. But then again, I don't think he likes anybody too much any more.
Mabus,
The "One True Church" reference wasn't mine. I feel that human knowledge of the world is like looking at a multi-faceted diamond. You get a different view of reality, science, history, etc, depending on your point of view. Reviewing the history of WWII, for instance, from the point of view of Japanese in American internment camps, or Japanese in their homeland, or Jews in the US, or in German concentration camps...there is some central truth, some blow-by-blow, moment-by-moment sequence of events that happened...but what is remembered and what is recorded is all coloured by all those various perceptions and memories. But it's not "The One Truth." It's likely that "The One Truth" can never be regained, once its moment has passed.
However--even though you may view things from all these different angles, and perhaps see a glimmer of a universal spirit, or a Holy Father, or something to that end, within the gemstone, I do consider those to be false illusions.
For those of you who don't know of it, it's about a man who's trapped in a cave, along with other people. All he's known all his life is shadows on the wall.
One day he looks over his shoulder and sees a fire and a road. On the road are people holding things so their shadows play along the walls of the cave (one example is a tree branch). While the branch isn't the real tree, it's a more accurate picture of the real thing than a shadow on the wall.
However, the man gets freed from his chains and begins to explore around the cave, when he sees an opening with sunlight diffusing into the cave. He climbs out into the sun and sees real trees. When he goes back down into the cave and tells everyone about it, they don't believe him.
The Allegory is while we're alive, all we have is shadows of the Truth. When we die (exit the cave), we see the Truth for what it is.
I guess the point I'm making is that only after we die, we really see what happens to our souls, and what kind of person God/Satan is.
[EDIT: for another link and to let DOG know that we still like him]
[ April 14, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm more in tune with the Tao Te Ching in that "The Tao that can be told is not the the True Tao". That, the Truth that can be conceptualized or trapped into words can at best be a (with respect to Plato and Mayday) shadow of the actual truth. Real Truth can only be lived or experienced and not captured.
A corollary to this is that any meaningful definition of Truth must conceive of it in a relationship with the person experiencing it. Thus, Truth, as far as humans can know it, is inherently contradictory.
[ April 14, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I honestly didn't see what I presented as existing in this thread or, in large part, in the other discussions of religion that I've participated in on Hatrack. I really haven't been around all that much lately, so I might have missed other threads where this came up. If I missed it here, could you point out to me where you thought it was?
Squicky, I am trying to decide if you are talking about the "One True Church" belief or people admitting to have been mistaken about religious feelings. I will attempt to answer both then.
From PSI:
quote: And alot of people get confused and think God is telling them to do something, when really it's just their own desire keeping them from hearing the truth. Not that I claim to know which is which, but I've definitely done things I though God would want me to do, but then realized it was just ME that wanted me to do it. Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially when people don't know God well enough to really recognize his voice.
And Belle made indirect reference to confusion in getting messages from God, but didn't directly talk about having thought something was from God and later decided it wasn't.
On the subject of "The One True Church": I have been aware of this idea since my earliest days, so it doesn't seem foreign to me. And since I try to believe the best of people until they give me good reason not to, I tend not to think of it as a philosophy used to excuse bad behavior. Although I agree that many do it without realizing it. I think if they realized they were using it as an excuse, they would be ashamed and stop, but again that is me wanting to believe the best of people.
I think the genuine idea behind it is that if there is One God and One Reality that we all share, then it makes sense that there would be One True Church. I realize this differs from what Belle was saying. *Is very very sorry that I didn't get to read the thread before it was deleted*. From what I have read in this thread, she feels that many churches can be true despite differences because they all have the same underlying good intentions. There is also the belief that since people are different, different religions would fit their differing needs.
I believe that God is the same always, that what is true is always true and is true for all people. (This is not to say that God does not take into account the different needs and circumstances of individuals, because I believe He does.) I believe that he works through prophets to whom He does speak. I believe He makes His will known to people. I believe that it is possible (though I don't expect it to happen) for everyone to belong to one church and for that to be a good thing. I don't think such a thing should *ever* be forced on people though. That is a highly idealistic view, and I realize that.
Hopefully that helps explain how the "One True Church" idea can be more than a liscence to do wrong. Please let me know if it doesn't and I will try to do a better job.
On a different note, I can see now how that comment from Belle could have been just as irritating to you as your statement was to me. I myself try to state my beliefs in the context that they are "my beliefs", but sometimes I forget too. I apologize for the times I may have done that.
Edit: Oops! That last paragraph is for DOG. Sorry for the confusion!!
[ April 14, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Mayday,
Presupposing, of course, that there is (are) a God/Satan. Be careful, or you'll get John L giving you grief about daring to make unsupported absolute statements. Unless, of course, he agrees with you. In which case you're all right.
Squick,
quote:Truth, as far as humans can know it, is inherently contradictory
No, it isn't.
[lies down on all fours, with the stick of truth resting oh, so gently between the front paws, waiting, waiting....]
--DOG
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, You know, I completely missed that statement from PSI on both read throughs. I read PSI's stuff and that just failed to register, even when I specifically looking for it. That's totally my bad. Of course, I still disagree with one of the fundamental parts of it. I think that the way to the divine lies much in knowledge of the self and of human nature in general than in knowledge of God. It seems to me that only by knowing the traps that people fall into can you avoid them. Of course, I have a tendency to see the weaknesses in people and have more sympathy for a transcendent (in all things, including myself) than a immanent (a specific separate entity) divinity.
As to the One True Church issue, I'm not sure if you are defining a theoretical entity or a specific (i.e. your) church. If it's a theoretical thing, I could see the reasoning, but that wasn't the idea that I was adressing. Rather it was the idea that one church pretty much has the monopoly on truth in that, anyone who disagrees with them or has a perspective that is "weird" from their point of view is by default wrong.
Actually, now that I revist the idea, I can think of a way that this would be rational. If there were a collection of statements where the only way to determine their truthfullness was the authority of the people who said them (i.e. possibly in regards to "prophets"), then centering your One True Church around this idea of authority would make sense. That is, if you had some really good evidence that this authority was the only source of rightness.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Though I did not come out and say it, I was indeed talking about my belief in the church to which I belong. I believe it is lead by a prophet of God who receives God's words exactly as did those of Biblical times. I believe that we are still receiving scripture. I understand that for me to say that my church is the only true church on the earth is terribly arrogant and offensive, yet I believe it.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
DOG:
Thank you for pointing it out. Although I believe that God/Satan exist, for those that believe that they don't, I guess it could be:
We all have to pass out of the mortal realm to know the Truth, and if they even exist.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Something I've noticed in some posts here. Not so much a question of whether there is a good or a bad, but in the binary categorization. It seems to me, and I'm sure anyone can come up with their own examples that a "good action" or "good choice" could be identical to a "bad action" or "bad choice" depending on the surrounding circumstances.
I know the feeling of being judged and thinking it was unfair if only the person judging me knew the entire history and context leading up to and surrounding a particular choice or action. Conversely, certain actions taken on my part that have been judged "good" were simply happy accidents when I happened to be on the premises. Then, there are those times I struggled to do something good and it went unacknowledged. And, those times I felt like being naughty and it also went unacknowledged.
fallow
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev (is bev ok or should I type out beverly?), But that raises the question, how do you determine truth? Is it through only revealed means, and if so, what guarantee do you have that God is only speaking to other people as well as your guys? See, as far as I can tell, unless you can be sure that truth only comes through the authority of your church or that there is no other way (or at least no other feasible way) to determine truth besides relying on their authority, I don't see what purpose putting an emphasis on "My Church is the Only True One" serves.
However, if this is true, than you are explicitly doing what I said, by excluding the experiences of all other people who do not belong to your Church.
Maybe I'm not making my objection clear enough. Pretty much, I'm saying, it's fine that you believe in progressive revelation and prophets and such, but I don't understand what purpose is served by making it an important part of your belief that no one else could be getting truth, except to make it so you don't have to consider their experience. Would the True parts of your faith be different if you believed in all the elements except for the One True aspect of it? I honestly don't see how that could be.
[ April 14, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
On the 'One True Church' issue...
As a Roman Catholic (the enemy!), the belief is (and I'm begin sarcastic and paraphrasing) that the Church is the 'One True Church', but that if you believe something else, well you just don't know any better, and that you'll go to Heaven if you're a good person. However, if you turn your back on the Church (IE: change denominations), then you're going to Hell.
That, I don't believe strictly. I think that if you're a good person and you live a good life (ie: don't kill or hurt other people intentionally, et cetera), then you'll achieve whatever end you believe in: Heaven, nirvana, moksha, eternal rest, whatever else (those are the only examples I can give because those are the only ones I know of, so far and at midnight my mind completely shuts down).
I think that's why people can 'create' gods, angels and demons. We're so worried about dying, we need some form of self-preservation. What better way then inventing some form of 'eternal paradise'?
On a side note, I am so going to Hell. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: A corollary to this is that any meaningful definition of Truth must conceive of it in a relationship with the person experiencing it. Thus, Truth, as far as humans can know it, is inherently contradictory.
I've said this before, but it's been a few months. My church is not the true church because it is the sole posessor of truth. It is the true church because it is living and changeable. Though we seem to feel there are some things that won't change. At least not in response to public outrage.
And I used to be very active on a forum where it was forbidden to write the word "Satan". We were allowed to refer, however, to "Stan". I thought that was really idiotic. If a post was about God, it was iffy whether the mods would let it on at all. The mods reviewed everything that was posted there first.
Anyway, I agreed that truth cannot be fully contained in words. But words can help. I compared it to the ground that receives a seed in the lost thread.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm not going to presume that people of other faiths can't receive truth, because I believe they can. I do believe that there is a "line of authority" issue here (kinda like what the Catholic church claims). The idea is that God will use the line of authority that He put in place. He will also impart truth and goodness to others. But His church organization exists where the authority exists.
As for "how do you know it's true?" One answer: you can't. Not without firsthand knowledge yourself. We believe that each individual must seek their own "testimony" or solid faith by seeking their own revelation. If I may quote the Bible, Rev 19:10 ...for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. We believe that individual revelation is essential to true faith.
And then there is the idea of faith being strengthened by trying the doctrine out for yourself. John 7:17 17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Here, Christ was being questioned on the source of His doctrine. I believe He was telling us that if we will try the doctrine out, or "do" it, we will be able to learn from ourself if it is of God or "true".
There is a passage in the Book of Mormon that expounds on this same idea. In Alma chapter 32, a prophet, Alma, is preaching to a group who is partially receptive to his message and says that he wants them to plant "the word" like a seed in their hearts. If it grows, they will know it is capable of growing, or has merit. If they nurture it and it brings them good fruits, then they can know that it is "good" (as in righteous and true). The idea here is that even if you have no faith, you can start with desire. That desire can become faith, and that faith can be strengthened. The idea is that that faith can eventually become knowledge.
Edit: Bev, bev, Beverly, beverly, Dr. Crusher, all are fine.
[ April 14, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
How does one construct abstract logical arguments about something that can't be logically abstracted?
fallow
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
fallow- some of us believe they can't, others believe they can apparently.
quote: there is a "line of authority" issue here
I'd like to develop (for once I'm not contradicting you!) this idea that in "The One True Church (tm)" all truth doesn't come through the line of authority. There is the Jeffersonian principle that whatever can be dealt with on the personal or local level should be. So if I need guidance about the day to day operations of my children, I don't ask my bishop or even my husband about it. I just pray about it.
Further, the method is to think about the problem and then pray about whether the solution thought up is right. But having severe mood swings as I have been, it's really hard to know. For me. At this time. But I'm up too late, I really should go to bed.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Pooka,
If I may. You are an inspiration to me. Not that I agree with you, but I like the way you think.
cheers,
fallow
(edited for spelling buffoonery of the... in this case, pretty inocuous kind)
[ April 14, 2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Dog, you've backpedaled out of your original assertion that it's totally pointless and that there absolutely is no valid reason for religion to continue.
Or maybe you've changed your mind. Either way, you're not arguing the same thing now.
Oh, and Eddie:
quote:I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, my problem lies with the problem of discrimination.
No it doesn't. Your problem lies with the complete lack of desire to understand any belief that you've already written off as silly. Not all religious divines are the same, not all have a yin and yang, not all have a good and bad, and not all have an adversary.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Leto/John,
Let's see if I can explain myself without having you accuse me of making excuses or changing my mind.
First off: I chose the title of this thread as a "Dobie" (if you would) of Belle's original thread. Unfortunately, she deleted her thread, and I can no longer remember the title she used (and which I Dobified).
My point (to quote myself, which I don't think I've ever done before):
quote:If this isn't enough to call the objectivity of God into question, then there's just nothing left. Faith becomes blind faith, and unexamined faith.
I can understand this: Two different people ask God the same question (or, to extend it, to pray for the same outcome); God responds (in word or action) in two mutually exclusive ways; and instead of saying "it must be the mystery of God--since God is inherently unknowable," the response is "The fact that we got two mutually exclusive outcomes is itself further proof of the existence of God."
Well, if no matter what happens it all becomes proof for the existence of God, then what's the point?
I claim: Adding water to powdered sugar will cause the creation of 200-foot-tall granite obelisks.
<<Adds water to powdered sugar. Waits. Nothing.>>
See! I was right! Adding water to powdered sugar does cause the creation of 200-foot-tall granite obelisks.
What sort of discussion or debate can you have with a class of people who accept the desired hypothesis, regardless of the real outcome of the investigation? You wouldn't accept it from these "so-called" evolution "scientists," why accept it from the "God Exists" theorists?
Hence the "pointless" reference.
--DOG
P.S. John/Leto: If this is still inadequate for your needs, please tell me just how you feel I've been wishy-washy. Apparently, I've got nothing better to do with my time than to make you comfortable with what I am saying.
[edited for spelling and stuttering, and the wise-ass Post Script]
[ April 14, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Your whole problem is (dis)proving the existence of a god. The problem is that not all religions have a single god, and not even all religions that have a single one disregard the gods of other religions.
Your problem is with Christianity, not religion. That's okay, though—most atheists go through some time hating Christianity for various reasons. It's created the most atheists of all time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Marx wins that particular race.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Eddie, you're biggest problem is your Christian-based view of religion as well. There's a reason you find your view so similar to DOG's in this case, and it isn't because I'm not calling it right.
And Kat, Christianity had an 1800 years head start. Marx is nowhere near the number Christianity is at. The Renaissance alone surpasses Marx.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That is a difficult question to answer because it is made up of different elements that differ from person to person.
One reason, you like what that "god" or "prophet" teaches. It appeals to something deep inside you. And since poeple are not all the same, you get a lot of different religions. Since most of us theists readily agree that we can't prove or disprove the existance or nature of God, having faith is always going to be somewhat nebulous in nature. Some are willing to trust, some aren't.
I suppose you could start a "Church of Eddie". See how many followers you get.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
John, you're not taking into account the expotential growth of world population. The most populous nation on earth is officially atheist.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Oh, so you're going by the government? Then gee, why aren't America, Britain, and other "technically" Christian countries all Christian? Seriously, Kat, that's horribly flawed logic. The most common faith in China is not "atheist." I dare you to prove that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You want to add Europe to the atheist list? Thousands of years of Christianity didn't create them, but secularism did. Point of origin does not prove causation.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Why not read the documents of the most influential atheist thinkers? All from Christian origins, Kat. The origin does indicate causality.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's sweet you think most atheists come from reading Nietzsche.
There are a million reasons someone is or becomes atheist, just as there are a million reasons someone is converted to believe in God.
[ April 14, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Actually, Kat, there are a couple billion reasons people become atheists.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I think one or two overlap.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
More reasons than people then?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bev, my first response was to giggle, but...yeah. Probably. Especially if it was a change, there are probably several reasons for any belief system.
On the other hand, I'll bet a lot of different people changed for the same reason, so it works out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I like Jasper Fforde's "Generic Standard Deity." It's like being Unitarian, only with better curse words and more sex.
Back in the day, I thought about a Church of Tom -- just coming up with a list of things I thought would be good for society and letting people sign on if they liked the idea. I gave up when I realized that "do this because I really, really want you to" wasn't much of a motivator.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
John,
And why not read the works of some of the most influential Chritian thinkers? After all, C.S. Lewis started out as an atheist.
Just now reading "The Problem of Pain." Gotta love his reasoning for the guaranteed existence of Christ as the "Son of God" (tm).
quote:A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else he was a madman or something worse." [Mere Christianity]
I couldn't find the similar quote from "The Problem of Pain."
Either way, I think you'll all recognize this as "the fallacy of the excluded middle."
BTW, I still like "The Screwtape Letters"! Maybe it's just because John Cleese reads it!
--DOG
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:And why not read the works of some of the most influential Chritian thinkers? After all, C.S. Lewis started out as an atheist.
Wrong-o, boy blunder. He spent some time as an atheist when the religion he had failed under his self-questioning.
And while he's fine for apologetics, there are plenty of Christian groups who say he doesn't speak for them at all.
And that quote does jack and squat to show that you are not mostly Christian-centric in your outlook on religion.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:No doubt Christianity is my biggest influence regarding my religious paradigm -- does that invalidate my questions or opinions? I don't understand what you're trying to get at.
That it's not religion you have a problem with. It's Christianity. So stop trying to make your case against "religion," when every argument is against Christian ideals.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, I'm really not trying to be anatagonistic here, but I don't really think that you've answered my question. I know that I still don't see what non-excluding purpose OTC thinking serves.
From what I'm getting, you're saying that we believe in One True Church because these things are true. For me, OTC'ing isn't about things being true, but rather other things not being true. If you subtract OTC from your beliefs, you still have all te same things you're talking about being true, but you're opening up to the possibility of other things being true as well.
At least, that's how I see it. I find this way of looking at things more palatable, both in terms of a theoretical system and in terms of taking responsibility for the confidence I have in my beliefs. While I may have found some truths I can feel confident in, I've never yet had any logical reason to believe that they are the only truths out there. People have been finding truth for as long as they've been people, and the vast majority of these truths have been different from mine. Not only do I think that it's more logical to accept that these people may have not all been deluding themselves, but I find that I learn a lot more from them if I approach them with an open and eager mind, instead of starting from the assumption that they are necessarily wrong.
edit: I really do think that it might be an interesting exercise to, in theory, delete the One True Church assumption from your religious beliefs and see what changes would result from this.
[ April 15, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Is it me, or does John L seem to currently exist only to tear down others when they fail to meet his apparently undisclosed agenda for truth or accuracy in debate and discussion? I have also noted a peculiar lack of opinion on his part, except when he says, "You're wrong," or, "You're an idiot," or "Your problem is..."
quote:As many people who have read the life story of C.S. Lewis realize, at one time he was an atheist. However, for the most part, that is all that anyone knows. In most cases, there is an unavoidable absence of material. He goes from an atheist in 1915 to a Christian in 1931 ...
That's by a gentlemen out of Stanford. That's a reasonable enough data point for me.
And as for me being mostly "Christian-centric" in my outlook, fine. So I am. Once I've made my point in the Christian world, I'll move on to the other religions. And the only reason I brought up Lewis was because you had stated, "Why not read the documents of the most influential atheist thinkers? All from Christian origins." I figured a little tit-for-tat was in order. It was a pun! No, wait--what's that thing that's the same backwards as forwards? Ah, yes: a Palindrome!
Oh, wait--I forgot! I'm sorry. Ever since that traumatic incident, supposedly involving twins and an exploding can of Jalapeno cheez-whiz, you've lost your sense of humor! BTW, it's too late to get it back from that guy in my basement. He's made it into a hat, and refuses to give it up.
(here, watch: get ready for another humorless, insulting come-back from our former friend, Leto II...)
--DOG
[edited to add one last snarky comment at the close of the first paragraph]
[ April 15, 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
umm... I just deleted my post.
Something to do with building logical foundations before reaching skyward. Also, the difficulties with building foundations on a faultline.
not that I wouldn't recommend it as a hobby.
fallow
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Whine whine whine.
Whine whine whine.
And as for me being mostly "Christian-centric" in my outlook, fine. So I am. Whine whine.
Whine whine whine.
Thank you. That is all.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
John, you're more than smart enough to offer far more intelligent arguments.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Squicky, interesting points. I will attempt to address them and hope that my brain is still working this late at night.
I believe that when the teachings of religions contradict, they can't both be right. It is illogical. And if they didn't contradict, would there be anything barring them from being the same religion? It seems that much of Protestant Christianity is trying to create this illusion of unity, but I don't buy it. They still teach some very different things. They can agree on some points, like the Bible being scripture and Christ being the Savior, for example. But they have some (IMO) irreconcilable differences.
Some people believe that all or most religions are correct. Some believe that all religions are the product of man, whether with good intentions or genuinely following divine inspiration. I think the second is true for all churches but the OTC. Because the other churches are full of people with good intentions trying their best to follow divine inspiration (which I believe exists and comes from one source), most contain goodness and truth. But I believe that those true doctrines are mixed with human error. Sometimes that error is harmful whether the teachers of it intended it so or not, because it is misleading.
I propose that God wishes there to be a church on the earth, OTC. Many don't see a need for that, but I do. How else are you going to avoid human error altering the interpretation of doctrine? There must be a prophet. There must be revelation. There must be the correction of error coming from God Himself through His servant. Not to say that the OTC would be perfect, indeed it would be chock full of human error because it is full of humans. But the members would try their best to follow the corrections from their prophets.
Even though the prophet and twelve apostles leading the church are human and imperfect, they are good men, chosen by God, who are humble, full of love, and seek to follow Him. I believe God really does speak to them. This really is crucial to my belief in the OTC. And in order for this to work, the members of that church must place a great deal of trust in their prophets.
This frightens many people, that we put so much trust in human beings to tell us God's will for us. But, hey, that's what all scripture is. It shouldn't seem too unfamiliar. And just as we can "test" the words of the scriptures, we can "test" the words of living prophets. Pray about it. Seek wisdom directly from God, for we believe He also communicates with each individual. Without personal revelation, there would be no way to know what is from God and what isn't. NO WAY.
I understand that many believe that personal revelation is nothing more than delusions of the mind. It is true that many (including myself) have thought they received personal revelation and it really was just them thinking what they wanted to believe.
As for myself, one of the ways I descern if something is from God is that it effects both my mind and heart in an edifying, ennobling way. There are many things that effect me emotionally that have nothing to do with the spirit. There are many things that appeal to my mind that I believe are not of God at all. But there are those moments that both are touched.
Are these promptings clear? Often not. They are just promptings, urgings in a certain direction. More than that would remove the need for faith (something that my religious beliefs say is crucial to learn.) For the clear instructions, we need prophets. The promptings are just enough to help us build our faith. First we trust, then we act on it. If the result is good, our faith is strengthened. It is like planting seeds, nurturing them, and seeing what they will grow up to be. It requires an initial "downpayment" of trust. That is what I believe God requires of us. Those who cannot or will not make that first steps will remain athiests (in this life.)
I do believe that some see angels, see visions, hear voices, dream dreams that are from God, not prophets, but people to whom God chooses to send these things. But such visions will impart information for that person, not for the church as a whole. We believe that God will use His line-of-authority for that.
I also believe that "seeing an angel" will not make someone act with faith after such a vision. In fact, if they were not able to act on faith before such a vision, after such a vision they are even less likely to act on faith. IMO, that's why God doesn't do it much. I will explain this in another post if you wish, this one is too long already.
Blah. Too much rambling. That's what I get for trying to write this past my bedtime. I have no clue if that did anything to answer your question.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I think polarization is a good and fairly concrete issue to address.
as an abstraction.
fallow
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Bev,
Very sweet post, well said.
I do have one question: why must people "learn to have faith"? How is that statement different from "learn not to require proof regarding what to believe"?
It means to accept something that comes from a "higher" human authority, without questioning; or to accept something which you feel inside (whether coming from your own mind, or from God) without any deep questioning or demands of validity--except for your "makes me feel enobled" reference (in other words, "it just feels right to me").
I hope I have not come off as in any way insulting in the above statements; that was certainly not my intent.
Now it is my intent to become insulting:
Thank you John L. At least now I've been proven right in one thing I've posted in this thread.
Check me here, people: still no real content from the mysterious John L? Am I right?
--DOG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
DOG,
C.S. Lewsis became an atheist. He was Christian as a child, became an atheist, then was a Christian again. So saying he "started" as an atheist is flat out wrong. Read Surprised by Joy.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:It means to accept something that comes from a "higher" human authority, without questioning; or to accept something which you feel inside (whether coming from your own mind, or from God) without any deep questioning or demands of validity--except for your "makes me feel enobled" reference (in other words, "it just feels right to me").
Blind faith does not equal faith. Faith is knolwedge of something that isn't necessarily tangiable (like saying I have faith in your soccor skills would count as faith).
Hobbes Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
One of my biggest beefs with Christianity is that in order to have faith in a Savior, I first need to have faith that there are unseen eternal consequences for my sins that extend beyond the grave.
I need to have faith to be damned in order to have faith to be saved. It doesn't make sense to me yet.
Consequently, I have a very low level of "guilty" feelings for a Christian. I feel comfy paying for my own sins. That being said, I find the example of love shown by Christ and traditional bible stories to be very life affirming--except the whole Abraham-and-son incident and Nephi beheading Laban.
For all my antiism you will read throughout these posts, I find religion useful to me.
[ April 15, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
But Hobbes, have you seen my soccer skills? I suck.
Your faith in my soccer skills either means that 1) you see something there (tangible proof, if you would) that I am better than I think I am--or that I can be better, or 2) you're just lying to me to make me feel--and perhaps play--better, because there is nothing to indicate that I have any soccer skills at all.
Dag,
You may very well be right. The references that I was able to find (not having read Surprised) indicated that although he was born to a Christian family, his first "recorded" thoughts were those of an atheist. Certainly, by the time he was 15, he was an atheist, and went on from there.
--DOG
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Dog, soccor skills was an example, as you've pointed out I have no clue what your soccor skills are, and so no, I don't have faith in them. However, if I've seen you play and you looked like you were good, then I'd have at least a little faith in your soccor skills, right?
quote:tangible proof
I think watching you play soccor and thinking you are good because of it results from nothing tangible or provable.
Hobbes Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
DOG, that is a very good question, one I have also asked myself many times. Because this whole idea is very much based on the idea that "faith is necessary". For any semblance of answer, I have to reach to my theology's doctrine of life before earth. I think that is relevant because the idea here is that each one of us before birth had a perfect knowledge of God, for we lived with Him and interacted with Him as His spirit children. We were probably with Him an extremely long time, but the length of time is not known. I believe that we had progressed as far as we could in that state, but still were far from being like God. God presented to us a plan in which we would come to live on a world He had created for us to be tested and to learn to become more then we then were.
First, God was more than just a spirit, He had a body and a spirit joined together. The body of which I speak bears resemblance to our mortal bodies (we were created in His image) but is perfect and glorified and we don't completely understand what that means at this time. So one reason to come to earth was to receive a mortal body, the first necessary step to one day having a body like His. This body would allow us certain abilities to act on our surroundings that we didn't have before. This body would have powers and sensations that we had never experienced before. It would provide us an opportunity to learn in ways we never could before.
Now some of the aspects of this "mortal body" did not exist in Adam and Eve before partaking of the fruit and did not come into play until after "the Fall". And as Alexa has pointed out, we believe that without faith in "the Fall", the consequences of sin and it's implications, it is very difficult to believe in the necessity of a Savior.
A post-fall body was subject to all sorts of imperfect health and is not capable of living forever. A post-fall body has an animal-aspect, the need to survive, even at the cost of others. A post-fall body has sexual desires to deal with. (I do not know if a pre-fall body had these desires, it may have, but I am thinking not.) I believe that dealing with those desires is a particularly important part of our mortal test. (Subject for another post.)
So here we are with no memory of what we were before our birth. The idea is to see what sort of life we will live under these circumstances. Our only knowledge of God comes from faith rather than knowledge, because 1) it has already been shown what we will do with that knowledge without a body 2) with a post-fall body, it is pretty much a given that we are going to sin. The idea is that it is much, much less serious for us to do wrong without a sure knowledge of God and truth than for us to sin without that sure evidence. I believe that one of the reasons we can't prove God's existance is because He has made certain that we can't. Such proof would damage the purpose of our mortal life.
So, God has given us all a conscience. We know if we are living according to it. We are judged according to the knowledge that we have. If we "know" inside that killing is wrong (as most humans do) then we will be judged more harshly for killing. But since our doctrine states that no man can return to God in ignorance, all must be taught truth whether in this life or after death. (Thus the belief in missionary work going on amongst the dead.) What happens to those who can't accpet things on faith? (For there are many.) I don't know. Perhaps they will be given evidence little by little over time to see what their "faith" threshold is. How much "proof" is required to believe something is true? For some it might take the reality of an afterlife to even begin to consider these things.
Why is faith so important? I still don't completely understand that. But from what I have read and experienced, faith is a sort of power. If I might use an innacurate and weak analogy, why was Neo "The One" in the Matrix? Why did he have so much power? He had amazing faith, or so we are lead to believe. He had the presence of mind to view the illusion around him and "see through it". In the world of the Matrix, if you had enough "faith", you could, to the extent that you had that faith, bend the world around you. I think that that sort of faith is an attribute of Godliness and one of the things we came here to learn. Having faith to trust the words of God is just a small part of that. And I believe that learning of faith will continue after this life.
Our scripture contains a story about a man who approached God with such faith that God could not keep him "within the veil". In other words, he "saw" everything. He saw God, His acts and purposes throughout time. He saw every human that has ever lived or ever would live on earth. All this because of his faith. We have another scriptural account of a man in whom God trusted so much to only use power for good, or God's purposes. (God's only purpose is the benefit of His children and creations). God told him that anything He asked, anything at all, would be granted, because He would only ask for that which was right. These are two examples I can give of the power we believe faith has.
Do I have such faith? Alas, no. I try my best, though, and I believe that that is all that God asks of us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
DOG,
Surprised is a very good read. It includes much of his reasoning in considering and rejecting various religions.
Dagonee
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Bev,
Maybe I'll get brownie points from John L for responding to a question about the Mormon faith! Or that may still be too Christian-based for him to give me any extra credit. Whatever.
Also, you are stating your belief in the Mormon God, and its tenets, as absolute, or true. For the sake of our continued discussion, I will add "IMHO"s, as appropriate (as I have said you all are certainly allowed to do with my statments of alleged absolutes).
Either way, you seem to be writing from a position of absolute surety that God exists (not only God, but your interpretation of him, as laid out by your church; as you say it, the "One True Church."). Obviously, it's not my place to tell you to "stop it!", and so I won't. But your point of view is certainly skewed by this mindset, just as my point of view is skewed by my interpretation of the presented data (what we both, i believe, have agreed to call "the world").
There! I think that's enough disclaimers!
You claim faith is a sort of power. I will agree. It is a power that enables people to act when the information they have is insufficient to otherwise support those actions.
It's why people marry. Not homosexuals, of course--they're just sick. But normal people. You know--like us.
It's why people go and take new jobs. Except, of course, when they find out that they can't take Passover off without getting in trouble with their boss.
It's why we built the Twin Towers. Not thinking, of course, that a bunch of militant morons would fly a couple of fully-loaded jet airliners into them on an otherwise absolutely beautiful morning (let's see a show of hands--how many here now look at absolutely beautiful mornings just a little differently? I know I do.)
It's also why we go to war. Certainly why we invaded Iraq ("I know those weapons of mass destruction must be here...somewhere!")
And if an abiding faith in God leads people to perform good & kind acts, then how can I oppose that? But when people hide behind the "Love of God," and refere to God as "The Truth" (I'm not refering to you, I'm actually refering to a local letter-to-the-editor that was in our Sunday paper, and absolutely sickened me), and use that Love and Truth to denigrate entire classes of people, to the point where a bunch of high-school kids in Texas saw fit to torture and kill a homosexual classmate, then I say that unquestioning faith (a redundant statement, in my book) needs examination.
In fact, it needs examination anyhow. As does everything that might cause us to act in a negative way towards others (but that's just my "Spiritual Atheism" talking there).
New point:
The other night I was up way too late. You know you're up to late when they start talking about tomorrow's shows as being on "later tonight"! I was up late enough to find Carlton Fiske, and all those other "Make More Money Through Unscrupulous Real Estate and Internet Transactions At Home" paid advertisements.
They all talked about how you could earn tens of thousands of dollars extra every month; how you could retire at 35 with more money than you knew what to do with. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
I will admit my overwhelming ignorance of the Mormon faith. I have never been to a prayer meeting, or a sermon, and have never read the Book of Mormon that I have sitting on my study bookshelf. But...the way you referenced those two examples in your closing paragraph reminded me of those late night infomercials. (Do Mormons have a Hell? If you do, I've just guaranteed myself a seat.) These two men were able to parlay their strong faith into almost personal Godhead. I know those parables have a much wider meaning to you, and to your Church, but I see them as being used as tools by the Church to convince worshippers to increase their level of faith--in fact, to attempt to increase their faith to levels which can never truly be achieved (the ability to manipulate space and time), in an attempt to maintain a strong hold on their adherents. You can see televangelists doing it all the time.
It is a reward for desired behavior. Except it is a reward that the masters (the Pastors, Ministers, Prophets) never have to make good on. The desired behavior is incredibly strong faith in the Church in question.
I'm probably saying all this in an insulting manner, and for that I apologize. I am trying to come to terms with what I see as blatant manipulation by the leaders (Presidents, Pastors, etc.) of their followers, in attempt to gain power and control. Carrots on sticks. Except the stick is very long, and the carrot is so very far away. It's there though--it's a beautful, big carrot; it's just the carrot you've always wanted--but it's so far away that you really can't see it. You're getting closer to it! It's just like this carrot over here, but oh, so much better.
It's peace.
It's prosperity.
It's God.
It's heaven.
It's friendship.
It's a pair of voluptuous twins in skimpy bikinis, playing volleyball on a trampoline in the rain. While eating Jalapeno Cheez-Whiz.
It's the ability to drive over any terrain, in any weather, so you can get your baby to the hospital in time.
It's the ability to earn over $10,000 a month, in your spare time, with only a minimal investment (call now, our operators are standing by).
As an atheist, I can certainly still see some of the nobler aspects of religion. Except that good people don't really need the religious impetus to act nobly. "Not-good" people may very well be swayed by a rousing sermon to perform noble acts. Also good. But I see (again, IMHO) that so much of religion now is control. Gaining and maintaining control. Would you say that there are no aspects of "control" in any of the major, organized religions? Christianity? Mormon? Islam? (Did I spell that right, John L?) Judaism? Buddhism (which has been blamed by some for maintining the caste system in India, for example)? We certainly can criticize suicide cults for this. But what about the mainstream religions?
And back to faith: if you are told that you must believe without proof, and then are told that the more you can believe in this way, the better you are (the closer you can get to God), then you are being conditioned to avoid proof, and seek out faith (feeling). Then, when the need for understanding the scientific (proof-based) aspect of things comes along, you find that you have become dependent on what others ("superiors") are telling you is true, or you accept what you "feel" to be true as true, regardless of any proof to the contrary.
Why do you think GWB is so constantly appealing to people's faith?
[pant,pant, pant]
[wipes the foam and spittle from her mouth]
--DOG
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why do we need religion? To me it seems like the institutional aspect of things gets in the way of spirituality. Maybe it's because of my borderline mysticism... But organize religion frustrates me. Anyone can claim to be a prophet and dupe thousands of people into seeing things their way. But it does damage. Damage to individuals and also to people's perception of god...
[ April 15, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
*gets out a tub of popcorn*
This is fun!
*throws a handful of popcorn towards DOG*
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
What Synth Says!
ROWLF! [eats popcorn]
--DOG
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
(Notes double meaning in her previous GWB statement. Wonders if there's really anything to it.)
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
DOG, I just have a few things to say which probably won't have any effect, but I'll say them anyway.
When you say having faith requires no proof, it's leaving out something important. Yeah, you don't get scientific proof, but that's not to say there's no evidence. Ask any religious person why they believe, and most aren't going to say "because God requires that I have blind faith." They're going to give you answers, reasons for why they think their belief is justified. You're free to dismiss those reasons as non-objective, but it's just a different criteria that you have for evaluating proof than they do.
quote:But when people hide behind the "Love of God," and refere to God as "The Truth" (I'm not refering to you, I'm actually refering to a local letter-to-the-editor that was in our Sunday paper, and absolutely sickened me), and use that Love and Truth to denigrate entire classes of people, to the point where a bunch of high-school kids in Texas saw fit to torture and kill a homosexual classmate, then I say that unquestioning faith (a redundant statement, in my book) needs examination.
Yes, of course it needs examination, are you trying to imply that all religious people approve of that sort of behavior? Come on, bringing such an extreme example into the discussion does nothing to help it. If you're trying to prove that religion can be used for bad things, then I concede the point. Of course it can. Now we can discuss something productive.
And as far as you believing that organized religion is nothing more than an attempt to gain power by the leaders, well, maybe that is the case sometimes, but if you can't see anything but evil motives in these people's actions, then there's not much that can sway you. All I can say is that your interpretation is not the only reasonable explanation.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I would like to point out that the human experience consists of more then scientific inquiry. Inspiration, emotion, "awareness," identity, being able to both look up to God or look away from religion, spirituality, and so much more cannot be quantified and measured.
Having faith and spirituality is an attempt in trying to focus on more then a stale view of the universe that seems at odds with so many people's personal experiences. Faith can be very abused but so can science. One should not tout one superior to the other.
You can read a beautiful story about an apple tree in garden and dismiss it with science or appreciate any metaphorical truths that may be found.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Also, you are stating your belief in the Mormon God, and its tenets, as absolute, or true. For the sake of our continued discussion, I will add "IMHO"s, as appropriate (as I have said you all are certainly allowed to do with my statments of alleged absolutes).
I apologize for that. I get tired of saying "I believe" or "I think" or IMO every sentance. I should just put a big disclaimer up front or say, "Stay with me here, all the following is hypothetical". Please except this post as serving that purpose.
As for your concern about faith being insubstantial, can't help you there. I think we all agree that the existence of God can't be proven (except through individual experience). I choose to have faith, you (and others) choose not to. As I have said before, IF we find ourselves in the afterlife together, we can talk about it then. I'm not going to beat you over the head with it.
As for the idea that organized religions are excercising control over others, perhaps there is an element of that. The way our church is organized makes it a bit more difficult though. You see, any LDS man can hold the priesthood, assuming he is worthy. (Worthiness is determined through an interview, and yes, that man could lie his way through it, but I would like to believe that that case is far in the minority.) All positions in the church are fulfilled by the members themselves. They don't get paid. They get asked and either say yes or no. Bishops, teachers, any calling, lasts maybe a few years. The bishop over a group can be a bishop one week and a nursery worker the next. It is not viewed as a "demotion" since all callings are equally important.
IIRC, the presidency and apostles of the church receive some sort of allowance due to the amount of time they put in, and those callings are "for life". So if you wanted to make an argument for control, this would be the group to make the issue with. The way a new apostle is chosen when one has died (and with any other policy-changing decision in the church) is that they all pray and come to a unanimous decision. It would be hard for one person to have anything like absolute controll, but I suppose, conceivable.
If you find it difficult or impossible to believe in prophets, then you must toss out all scripture, right? And if you can't believe in prophets and you have to receive any info from God from the horses mouth, then you probably will never have faith in God in this life. I can live with that.
I am sorry that some people use their beliefs to do terrible things. It makes it harder for those who would not use such an excuse for personal gain or force. I hate the way a few give many innocent a "bad rap". That's not fair. Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Bev,
I think we're agreed on the "IMHO" waivers and disclaimers. I didn't mean to harp on it all that much, and I figured we're both pretty serious abut our points of view.
From what you described, the Mormon Church sounds relatively level-headed these days. One must acknowledge, however, that at its inception it was substantially about control. The Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind.
Not to single out the Mormon faith--the early Roman Catholic Church was also about control (the Crusades occured a few hundred years after the Papacy began; I'm sure I can find more evidence of the controlling aspect if I dig around on the Internet for more than just a minute or two). And it's certainly about control now. Birth control, anyone?
quote:If you find it difficult or impossible to believe in prophets, then you must toss out all scripture, right? And if you can't believe in prophets and you have to receive any info from God from the horses mouth, then you probably will never have faith in God in this life.
That's pretty much it.
Oh, and atheists can use faith and dogma to do some pretty terrible things, too. Stalin and Mao come to mind. But it wasn't just atheism, though. It was atheism and repression of free thought and expression (in other words: a demand for unquestioning faith in the political system, and its powerful, charismatic leaders)! There's an interesting combination: atheism and repression of free thought!
I'm not quite sure where Hitler stands in all of this. I think both sides want the other side to claim him, but no one will. Anyway, another powerful charismatic leader demanding faith.
Maybe "My Problem" (thanks for that phrase, John) isn't religion as much as it is the need for some groups to demand unquestioning faith of theier followers....I'm not actually sure if I believe that one myself; I'll have to take it under advisement.
Alexa,
quote:Having faith and spirituality is an attempt in trying to focus on more then a stale view of the universe that seems at odds with so many people's personal experiences....
You can read a beautiful story about an apple tree in garden and dismiss it with science or appreciate any metaphorical truths that may be found.
First of all, I never said that I have a "stale view of the universe." I find it just as fascinating as the next dog does. For you to assume that atheists (or, at a minimum, the "faithless") see a "staler" universe is also expressing a negative personal bias towards atheists (the faithless).
And I have absolutely no problem appreciating the Bible as a metaphor. I've always assumed that's exactly what it is. But I do have a problem accepting it as "truth" (a true description of the birth and growth of the physical and human world), as many people--some of whom have posted here--apparently do. (Not to say that those who feel it is truth "have a problem." That's for John L to say.)
--DOG
[ April 15, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
For the record, DOG, it is by no means proven that the leadership of the LDS church had anything to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Those who say Brigham Young authorized it are operating mostly on speculation. There was a thread about this a little while ago here, anyone remember which one it was? And I don't have to acknowledge that even at its inception, the church was all about control. We've had the same mechanisms for choosing our leaders ever since Brigham Young became the president of the church.
As for the Catholic church:
quote:And it's certainly about control now. Birth control, anyone?
Yeah, you're right, they couldn't possibly hold that policy because they actually believe that it's God's will. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt DOG, but if you keep assuming that your reasoning is the only possible explanation for someone's motives, I don't know how this discussion can be productive.
quote:Maybe "My Problem" (thanks for that phrase, John) isn't religion as much as it is the need for some groups to demand unquestioning faith of theier followers....
And by lumping "all religion" into that group it's you who have committed a logical error. I know that my religion doesn't demand unquestioning faith. They tell us to test the veracity of their claims through prayer and living the principles, and then let us judge whether that has the desired effect in our lives. And they tell us to do this about everything, not just the decision of whether or not to join the church. And I'm sure if you looked around some you could find other churches who demand similar things of their members.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
DOG, I am not sure I agree that they were more about control in the early days, but I can see why it might appear that way. For all I know, you may know more than I about it.
On the MMM, saying that was about control all depends on whether or not church authority was involved. From what I know of those leaders, I think that such actions would have been out of character for them. But it sounds like just the sort of thing you would get from an underground angry minority. The truth is, I don't really know one way or the other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the early Roman Catholic Church was also about control (the Crusades occured a few hundred years after the Papacy began; I'm sure I can find more evidence of the controlling aspect if I dig around on the Internet for more than just a minute or two).
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Kama,
1) I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about condoms. Tell me why a religious organization would want to regulate that?
2) I didn't say that all religions demand unquestioning faith. You quoted me; please re-read: I said some groups. Though I do know that the majority Christian religions in the US are not too big on questioning faith.
quote:tell us to test the veracity of their claims through prayer and living the principles, and then let us judge whether that has the desired effect in our lives
There's some small thing amiss there; and I can't quite put my paw on it...If believing that God exists (and that He exists in the way your Church says He exists) has the desired effect in your life, then that's good. But it is not a proof that God exists. If believing that light is ONLY a wave, and not a particle; or if believing that there is no Lorentzian time-dilation effect at near-light-speeds has the desired effect in your life (I know that my life is not impacted in the least by Einstein's modifications to Newton's laws, and--except for the solar cells on my calculator--I'm just fine believing that light is only a wave); again, does not make those beliefs true. It makes them useful, but not true (though they may still be true--it's just that their utility is not a proof of their actuality).
I felt real strange bringing up the MMM. It was probably offensive to do so, in ways that I don't properly comprehend. My point is this: as an atheist, I wonder about the people in charge of religious institutions. Certainly there is an aspect of control. There are a number of write-ups on the MMM (again, from that recent thread we all remember) which indicate a very strong "controlling" aspect. There is also (we all hope!) a stronger aspect of grace, and other proper religious attitudes and goals.
Hopefully, the people leading these institutions truly believe their own religious tenets (though I think everyone feels that for many of the "Cultist" religions, this may not be true), and are not just manipulating things for other reasons.
It's late--I'm starting to ramble, and I've chosen a subject likely to offend friends...so I'm going to stop for the evening before I put my foot in my mouth. Um...paw.
--DOG
Dag,
I meant earlier incidents. My history is not the strongest...
Or were you trying to make another point?
[ April 16, 2004, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, I'm not really sure where our disconnect is. I think that I'm doing a pretty bad job of expressing myself and what the nature of my objection is. I still don't think that your explanations, while giving me an interesting look into how you believe, have answered my objection.
But I'm also aware that we have some very different basic assumptions. I don't see why you would assume that Truth (with the capital T) would have to be logically consistent. Even if this is true (and I don't have any evidence one way or the other), I am completely against the idea that human beings' ability to comprehend Truth is advanced enough that our minds not being able to conceive of things fitting together would mean tat they logically don't.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I did not post in this thread, DOG.
[ April 16, 2004, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If there is some sort of omnipotent being up there, I'll bet it gets a good chuckle seeing all the people who think they've got him/her/it pegged.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Early Roman Catholic Church was not "about control." The birth control comment was quite ridiculous as well, for reasons already pointed out by someone else.
The one constant in you posts seems to be your unwillingness to use anyone's standards but your own in trying to infer motivation from act.
Dagonee
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Sorry, Kama; I meant Kamisaki.
Dag,
quote:The one constant in you posts seems to be your unwillingness to use anyone's standards but your own in trying to infer motivation from act.
[edit] "Infer motivation from act"? Infer a person's motivations based on their actions? I'll double check my posts, but I don't seem to recall telling people why they act a certain way. I've questioned their self-justification (XXXXX, do you really hear demons and angels whispering into your ears, or is that just you?).
But you are right in another way. I tend to use my own standards for determining what I consider to be (or likely to be) real or "true." [/edit]
But OK, so I'll use someone else's standards.
I'll use...John L's standards! "You're all wrong, and your problem is that you don't even know you're wrong. And you're racist. And a whiner. And you look like an anvil, or a piece of cheese. And what's with those boxing gloves? How do you type?"
Or....I'll use Pooka's standard
quote:So if I need guidance about the day to day operations of my children, I don't ask my bishop or even my husband about it. I just pray about it.
Further, the method is to think about the problem and then pray about whether the solution thought up is right.
God, am I right about all this? I mean, that you don't exist and all?
That proves it, then: I'm right. You may or may not be right; God didn't say.
I'll think up some others once I get some more sleep.
--DOG
[ April 16, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wasn't talking about how people come to their religious beliefs. I'm talking that you automatically assume that an institution that postualtes a particular moral principle is acting in order to control other people.
in other words, you think, "The only way I could believe X is if I also believed Y. Therefore people who believe X must also believe Y. Y is ridiculous. Therefore people who believe X have ridiculous beliefs."
You never even acknowledge the possibility that people who believe X do so because of A, B, and C.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that I fall into this trap myself. Even when I know that people say that it's because of A,B, and C, I often say to myself "They *say* it's because of A,B,and C, but I find it hard to believe that. Deep down, it's probably about Y."
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Dag,
I didn't mean to imply that an institution that postualtes a particular moral principle is acting in order to control other people. I meant to raise the possibility up for examination. I can't go back and check right now, but I will bet that I said it pretty strongly, though!
I'll look into your logical construct later.
--DOG
[edit for spellign]
[ April 16, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But I'm also aware that we have some very different basic assumptions. I don't see why you would assume that Truth (with the capital T) would have to be logically consistent. Even if this is true (and I don't have any evidence one way or the other), I am completely against the idea that human beings' ability to comprehend Truth is advanced enough that our minds not being able to conceive of things fitting together would mean tat they logically don't.
Interesting perspective. We both believe that human reasoning and logic alone are lacking. For you, that means that just because things appear to conflict doesn't mean they in actuality conflict because we don't know enough to be sure. Is that right?
I have always figured that truth would be consistent and agree with itself, but I can accept that things that appear to conflict may not in reality, and that we just don't see it.
My feeling that human minds are lacking lends to a belief in the need for continuing revelation from God to keep us from erring in our incorrect assumptions. Again, some feel that personal revelation from God is enough, but my thought is that if it were, there would be a lot more commonly-reached conclusions. But from your perspective, the different conclusions could all be part of the same truth.
IMO, the whole "truth" is not revealed. At best, it is only revealed in part. I can use my human brain to try and extrapolate the missing information from what I have, but even I think that I will probably not be right. I believe that the Lord can impart to me greater wisdom and understanding on something He has already revealed, but I believe that He would only reveal "new" information to someone He has chosen as a prophet, a "mouth-piece" if you will. I believe that is how He works.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
DOG - I'm not picking on you and normally don't point out spelling/grammar errors, but this is really funny:
quote:[edit for spellign]
If intentional, bravo! If not, don't admit it - bravo!
Dagonee
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Dag,
I don't understand? Don't admit what?
(looks up to the left, and whistles atonally)
--DOG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly!
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I have some issues with God.
What does God really want? Why does God prefer converts/servants to allies? What if God really did tell you to kill someone? How can you be ABSOLUTELY sure you are hearing God, and not Something Else? What's God's Agenda? What if I don't agree with it? If God told you to do something you believed was morally wrong, how could you bring yourself to do it? Why should you "surrender" your will?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Jenny, those are very good questions. I will try to take a stab at them, though I suspect only God could answer some of them.
What does God really want?
I think He wants us to become like him.
Why does God prefer converts/servants to allies?
Assuming this is the God I believe in (well that holds for all my answers), because He knows He is right and if our mindset differs, we are at fault. It is not arrogance, just the way it is.
What if God really did tell you to kill someone?
This happened to a prophet in the Book of Mormon named Nephi. He really hesitated over it. He was told some of the reasons why. He hesitated some more, then he did it. I believe it could happen. I believe that if it did, it would be the right thing to do.
How can you be ABSOLUTELY sure you are hearing God, and not Something Else?
I don't know. That is a judgement call an individual must make. Better be pretty darn sure, in this case.
What's God's Agenda?
"To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
What if I don't agree with it?
Then you are an enemy to God. He allows you your free agency, but He will also hold you accountable.
If God told you to do something you believed was morally wrong, how could you bring yourself to do it?
If you were sure the message came from God and had faith in God's infalability, then you would assume the fault was in your understanding.
Why should you "surrender" your will?
Because you trust that God loves you and everyone and wants and knows what is best. You believe that such a surrender will have good consequenses.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Dog, Do you mind if I write your name in lowercase? Whenever I write it in all caps I feel like I'm yelling at you.
quote:1) I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about condoms. Tell me why a religious organization would want to regulate that?
because they believe that sex is intrinsically connected with bringing new life into the world and should be used as such. because they believe that every conception is a gift from God and if he doesn't want you to have a baby he won't let you conceive.
I don't necessarily agree with those views, I'm not even sure if they accurately represent the Catholic position, but they are alternate explanations that don't involve "control."
quote:2) I didn't say that all religions demand unquestioning faith. You quoted me; please re-read: I said some groups. Though I do know that the majority Christian religions in the US are not too big on questioning faith.
Ah. I drew that conclusion from the title of this thread and the general tone of your posts, but if that doesn't represent your position then I apologize.
quote:If believing that God exists (and that He exists in the way your Church says He exists) has the desired effect in your life, then that's good. But it is not a proof that God exists.
I never said it was definitive proof. But this goes back to what I said in my first post: you and I have different standards for what constitutes reasonable evidence. You apparently will not accept anything that is not provable by the scientific method. I don't hold that standard. Which one of us holds the more correct method? We can argue that in the afterlife.
And I'm not really sure what your point is anymore on the "control" issue. Maybe it would be helpful to summarize what you're trying to accomplish here. I admit that in many cases throughout history religion has had a significant control aspect as its motivation. I do not think it has been the only motivation. From your last post I'm wondering if we really disagree about it, and yet we're still arguing. Clarify, please.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
More questions about God:
Why do you think God wants us to become more like him? How do you know this is what he wants? How do you know this is not propaganda? And is "God" properly defined so you know what you are expected to become more like?
Even if our minds are not equal to God's, why can't we be allies? If we have the ability to oppose or choose to work with God, then why shouldn't God ally with people who have the same goals, instead of expecting them to be unquestioning servants?
What are the consequences of following God's will? What if they are detrimental to you? What if it is God's will that you be damned, so that some other guy or a bunch of guys can be saved?
If God's Agenda is the "immortality and eternal life of man", what happens once the agenda is achieved? Say men become immortal and eternal. Then what? What if that gets achieved and everyone's still a slave to God?
Why give people Free Will, if it must be ultimately sublimated?
What if God didn't really want what was best for You, personally? Why should God care what is best for you, personally? Does God care more for you personally or for mankind?
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Kamisaki,
The control issue was a tangential topic. I think we may be substantially in agreement on it, though. Still, many religions maintain a certain level of control on their followers; some more than others. IMO, they must, since they are based on false premises. However, that isn't to say that they can't also have noble goals as well (and, to strip out all those double-negatives, they may even have noble goals...son of a gun!). For any religion to take hold in the hearts and minds and pockets of its followers, it has to at least start out with some modicum of control over its followers. The religions that didn't, I imagine, didn't exist for long.
quote:You and I have different standards for what constitutes reasonable evidence. You apparently will not accept anything that is not provable by the scientific method. I don't hold that standard.
What standard do you hold? And...(watch out--it's a trick question!)...how do you know your standard works. More specifically: how do you know it works better than mine, or how do you know if my standard is a valid or non-valid approach to understanding the universe/meatverse.
(No--not "meatverse"..."metaverse"! Sorry)
--DOG (Livin' in the meatverse!)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have a strange concept that maybe we, each human being has the power of god in them, to use as they use.. It goes a bit outside the bonds of Christianity which is why I quit it some time ago... It's just so easy for anyone regardless of religion be it Wicca or Buddhism to say they have the secrets, that they are prophets and that a person should sign their will over to them because they have God's mandate... There's no way of knowing whether it's true except to use instincts and intelligence at all times..
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Oh, and like you said, re. the birth control aspect of the RC Church...
It is my opinion that any religion or group that tries to manipulate the sexual desires and behaviors of its constituents (assuming all of legal age, of course--I'll have no NAMBLA crap here!) has got serious control issues.
Of course I say that now, just as my kids are starting to enter their teen years...
--the DOGster Livin' large in the meatverse!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Another thing that bothers me... Sexuality. I am not a hedonist by any stretch of the imagination, but the rein that the Churches put on sexuality and its expression disturbs me a bit. *Tries to learn more*
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:What standard do you hold? And...(watch out--it's a trick question!)...how do you know your standard works.
My standard is that I believe I can receive knowledge from God through feelings and thoughts as well as basing my decisions on things that I can observe with my physical standards.
And I don't know it works in the sense that you're asking. I can't prove it scientifically. But based on my observations of life it seems to work pretty well for me.
And personally, I think your standard is valid, just incomplete. There are a lot of things that I have seen/experienced that can't be explained by current scientific theories. Some of these things are explained by religion. That doesn't mean I reject science, by any means. I just think that there are things that science wasn't meant to deal with, so we have to use other standards to evaluate them.
quote:It is my opinion that any religion or group that tries to manipulate the sexual desires and behaviors of its constituents (assuming all of legal age, of course--I'll have no NAMBLA crap here!) has got serious control issues.
You seem to have an interesting view of religions as groups. Who in the religion has control issues? Is it just the leaders, or just the original founder, or all of the members as well? What about the kid who grows up and believes his religion with all his heart and becomes the leader. Does he have control issues if he perpetuates the sexual teachings of his church? Speaking of this in terms of "the religion" as if it is the acting entity is confusing, and I think it obscures what you're trying to say.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Disclaimer: I am answering these questions according to my beliefs. I realize that many would strongly disagree on some of these points.
Why do you think God wants us to become more like him? How do you know this is what he wants? How do you know this is not propaganda? And is "God" properly defined so you know what you are expected to become more like?
Why? I don't know exactly, but I believe that what He is is the greatest thing we can possibly be. I also believe that we *wanted* to be like Him and that is one of the reasons we are here on earth. How do I know? Because I believe He said so. My evidence is personal rather than scientificly testable. As for propaganda, I guess I trust Him that much. But as for how can you know? Depends on how much is required for you. But if you believe in a Biblically based God, a good starting place is studying those prayerfully, perhaps discussing with others. (If you are interested in the LDS perspective, I would add in LDS scripture also.) If you don't believe in a God with scripture, then I honestly don't know how you could come to know Him(She, It, They). I believe that He sent Christ as an example on what we are to become like. Matthew 5 is hard doctrine, but it is what we are to work towards, IMO.
Even if our minds are not equal to God's, why can't we be allies? If we have the ability to oppose or choose to work with God, then why shouldn't God ally with people who have the same goals, instead of expecting them to be unquestioning servants?
Can we be allies with God? In this life? Depends on your definition of allies. Some of the "conversations" God has had with some of His prophets makes it sound like they were allies to me. But for many of those stories, you'd have to investigate LDS scripture. From what I have read of the scriptures, God's servants do question Him. Sometimes He answers, sometimes not. I think it is really cool how there is a pattern in the scriptures of God refering to those who are "allied" with Him as servants, but then later, as they have proven their loyalty, as friends.
What are the consequences of following God's will? What if they are detrimental to you? What if it is God's will that you be damned, so that some other guy or a bunch of guys can be saved?
I am not sure how to how to answer that, because I don't believe God is like that. But it is a scary "what if" nonetheless! I guess my answer is, what could you possibly do to stop a God intent on damning you? Someone said something to the effect of: Enjoy rebelling against Him as long as I can.
If God's Agenda is the "immortality and eternal life of man", what happens once the agenda is achieved? Say men become immortal and eternal. Then what? What if that gets achieved and everyone's still a slave to God?
I don't know the full answer to that question, but I will answer what I do know according to my beliefs. We believe that the children of God can grow up to be like God in that they can create children of their own and continue the pattern of Gods and children of Gods. We believe this has been going on forever and will go on forever. Pretty unusual doctrine, I know. We also believe God will continue to have children that He will continue to put on other worlds He has made, forever. Granted, the requirements for becoming a "God" must be pretty steep. I hate to hear people toss it around lightly like, "When I have my own world, I will create unicorns." I feel presumptuous at all talking about "becoming a God", though I believe that is truly what God intends for us. I believe the universe is far bigger than even our most ambitious dreamers have imagined. When one of God's children has become like Him, I imagine the relationship might be compared to the relationship between a parent and their child who is now having children. I don't think we are ever slaves to God.
Why give people Free Will, if it must be ultimately sublimated?
Of all God's creations, we, His children, are the only ones capable of disobeying Him. We are also the only ones with the potential to become like Him. He is testing us to see what we will do. Will we follow Him? Choosing to is a big deal, and something we must experience and learn from. We are free not to, and I believe God will bless us as much as He "lawfully" can according to our obedience. (And because I have introduced the concept of the plurality of Gods, keep in mind that God does not just represent a personage, but He represents all that is good and right and "lawful" about the universe.) I think that the idea is that eventually our will will be the same as His will. That is how an innumerable "race" of Gods can all be considered "one" with no need to differentiate. They are not Borg or a Hive Mind, but their purpose and understanding is perfectly aligned.
What if God didn't really want what was best for You, personally? Why should God care what is best for you, personally? Does God care more for you personally or for mankind?
Since I believe God loves all His children. I also believe that God is wise beyond our understanding and delights in finding ways of blessing us. I don't think conflicting needs of His children frustrates Him much. I have always had trouble really having faith that God can care for me so much as an individual with so many others out there to consider. But He has said that He does, so mentally, I believe that.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
DOG, I will not hesitate to say that the church to which I belong tries its best to influence its members. That is pretty crucial to the whole idea. But to say they are trying to "control" people.... I dunno. Sounds kinda "angsty" to me.
We believe in a God of order, laws, and patterns. I know that "order" and "law" have been used for the vilest of evils. In fact, I believe in Satan and I believe that he has created a "counterfiet" of most every good thing from God. But to say that "order" and "law" and "structure" are inherently bad is evil, IMO. But not everyone thinks anarchy is evil. I believe that freedom, order, law, and structure can coexist happily. I believe they do in the universe God created.
If you fear its abuse, that's fine. But it is not good to assume that everyplace you find order and structure you will also find abuse of power. I see that pattern in many athiests and agnostics concerning God. They feel deep down that anyone with that much power has got to be corrupt, at least judging from how He lets bad things happen to good people.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Um, did I kill this thread then? Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
No reason to assume the guilty mantle of threadicide when sheer boredom might be the cause.
fallow
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
[JOKE]I'm having trouble figuring out if DOG is really a troll, or just a delusional dyslexic?[/JOKE]
I believe there is a God. I don't need Him to write me a note, appear in a burning bush or stop me in the road and talk to me through an ass. I believe because when I pray, I feel comfort and company. I have always envisioned Him as a the pentultimate father: giving life, loving, allowing our failures and rejoicing in our successes. Forgiving our transgressions and always loving us, because a parent's love is unconditional.
Aside from this, which I have thought about over and over again and never been able to disprove, I don't "know" anything about what I believe.
DOG, I don't belong to a religious group, but I will soon. In my life, there is more at stake than indulging my own acceptance of the unknown. I have kids and I belong to a community. I want my kids to have a point of reference/departure that is a bit broader than my simple beliefs. Also, the church community shares many of the same values that I do. It's nice to expose myself and my children to a community that doesn't rely on the "bad boy" image to justify itself.
As far as the "God is taking to you" thing, I think that JohnKeats started a thread a couple of years ago about whether or not God could tell you to do something that would prove to you that you weren't talking to God.
For me, anything that is the antithesis of what I believe His nature to be, is not good; is not of God, so I wouldn't do it. Basically, anything that doesn't build, create and support isn't of God in my opinion. I often think that God is the seed of our conscience and anything that would violate our conscience violates the God we believe in.
When I do something wrong or indulge in a petty grudge or anger, I not only feel like I'm letting myself down, but God as well. I want Him to be proud of me. I'm not for looking future reward, (I'm not that good a Capitalist ) but I'm looking for the warmth and pride from a job well done.
So what good is religion? I can't speak on a global basis, but I can say that I'm enriched by my faith because I "feel" that I never tackle any task alone and my community is enriched because I feel challeged to emulate the characteristics I see in God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet you're contemplating joining an organized religion for the social aspects, LadyDove...?
Christy and I have talked about this, and I can't imagine joining a church so that my children would feel like they "belonged" to a community. It seems dishonest to me, for some reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, it sounds like LadyDove already has faith, just not participation in a formal group. Her post speaks to the importance of the community aspects of that faith. That's much different than how you summarized it.
LD: Correct me if I misinterpreted your post.
Dagonee
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Dag- I think you got it right.
Tom- I'm looking at a multi-faith, Christian community church. The kids are well-socialized through school, organized sports and business/social functions in and out of our home, but a church community IS different than the general community.
My husband is a very cynical Catholic. I'm a cynical Protestant. We are cynical about the organizations because of the experiences we've had.
Despite the cynicism, we both recognize that religious groups tend to have a very strong emphasis on family as part of the community. It seems that everything else is either about couples or individuals and their relationship to the community.
I grew-up walking home from school with a group of JW kids. They were bound by their faith and they were bound-together by their faith. I always wished that my family had the same pressures to succeed as a family. I get the same feeling from the LDS on this board.
I can and do give the best example I can for my kids, but it's somehow more powerful when the same words come from the mouths of other elders in the community.
As far as being "dishonest"; I struggle with that too. I was very disillusioned by my church community- but I was disillusioned because they didn't live-up to the standards I perceived that they set for others. Yet while I was a part of the community, I learned the beauty of being able to talk about those ideals in a safe place. Honesty, charity, inclusion and love were celebrated rather than looked on as the result of a simple mind's desire to better the world.
I think that it would be dishonest for me to say that my kids won't be able to sift the palatable from the unpalatable, just as I did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think that it would be dishonest for me to say that my kids won't be able to sift the palatable from the unpalatable, just as I did."
No, that's not where the perceived dishonesty lay, at least for me.
What I would consider dishonest is belonging to a church to whose ideals and beliefs and dogmas you do not subscribe. Since this isn't the case -- it's a broad-minded and ecumenical church, and you believe in its precepts -- there doesn't seem to be any problem.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It would only be dishonest if you claimed you believed what the church believed when you did not.
But there are plenty of folks, including myself, who go to churches and yet don't accept every piece of dogma they have. There's a set of beliefs that you have to profess to in order to become a member, but outside of that I don't think you are bound to accept all the ideals of your church. (I know people who'll switch entire denominations just so their kids can be in the same church as their friends, and so on.)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt DOG, but if you keep assuming that your reasoning is the only possible explanation for someone's motives, I don't know how this discussion can be productive.