So I've been rereading my Bible as of late and through my study as well as through talking to others the question of polytheism continually comes up.
We obviously refer to Judaism and Christianity as monotheistic religions, but are they really? Well, they are at the moment, but were they supposed to be?
These questions occur partly because of the first commandment, which seems to imply there are other gods that Yahweh is concerned the Hebrews will go off and worship. The OT is also full of references to other gods and, at least how I've read them, they seem to accept these other gods as existing.
And then the question comes up about whether it is polytheism to acknowledge the existence of other gods, or for it to be actual polytheism you have to worship more than one? Hindus, for example, are not unknown to choose one god as a 'patron' and worship it. Though they acknowledge the existence of the other gods, and we do refer to it still as polytheism.
I also just want to be clear that I'm not making any judgment about polytheism or monotheism. By suggesting that Judaism and Christianity might be similar to polytheism I am in no way meaning that as an insult.
Just curious what everyone thinks on the matter, because it is a bit interesting to me.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
Nearly all gods mentioned in the bible or the lifeless Idol types. The types of gods that only have as much power as man gives them.
My question has always been when God makes man he says "Let us make man our image and in our likeness." (all I have handy is my Spanish Bible so I can't give an exact quote)
Who is "us" and "our"?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Genesis explicitly states that Elohim (gods, plural) created the heavens and the earth. Modern Jews dismiss this plural usage as being similar to the royal "We." Cultural anthropologists, however, take notice of the same thing you see. Up until the exile to Babylon, the bible refers to the Hebrew god as if he is only one of many. After the exile to Babylon, he becomes "The One True God."
The predominant religion in Babylon was Zoroastrianism, which was the first monotheistic religion. The predominant theory in cultural anthropology is that the hebrews assimilated the monotheistic concept into their own religion, and treated all the gods previously mentioned in the bible as false gods.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
A separate but related question:
Since Mormons view the Trinity as being separate in identity, couldn't that in a way be interpreted as polytheism?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Also, from a pagan standpoint, Satan and the other angels would be considered gods or demigods. Judeo-Christianity gets around this simply by defining them as being less than gods.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism. There are definitely henotheistic strands of thought in the Bible, competing with the monotheistic strands. Monotheism won out.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: My question has always been when God makes man he says "Let us make man our image and in our likeness." (all I have handy is my Spanish Bible so I can't give an exact quote)
Who is "us" and "our"?
Classical theology would tell us that is God in trinity.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
In the Old Testament, the Jews are always influenced by pagan cultures, often intermarrying and converting to polytheistic religions. God is concerned about worshipping no other gods before him, not because he knows there are other gods, but because his people can be led to believe there are other gods.
The most glaring part of the Bible that I noticed seemed to acknowledge more than one God is in Daniel, when Nebbuchanezzer speaks. He, however, is a king of pagans, and believes in man-made deities himself. He seems to acknowledge, however, that the god of the Jews was the most powerful high God.
When God says "let us," in Genesis, it is possible that the Trinity existed at that time and "us" refers to the three manifestations the one God takes. If there are multiple gods, all omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, the lines between them would blur and they would in reality be one God. This is why the Holy Trinity is not treated as an indication of polytheism in most Christian sects.
Posted by Lostincyberspace (Member # 11228) on :
I being Mormon don't understand the trinity and the reasons I have gotten for it are non existent. Don't get me wrong I know many people who believe in the trinity and we have no problems they, just haven't been able to get me to understand from a investigative point of view. I know there is the the water analogy where god can be manifested in different forms like water. but what about the fact that it cant be in the different forms at the same time, as at Jesus's baptism. Where god speaks and Christ is there and the holy spirit comes down in the form of a dove.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think it is reasonably well accepted among non-Christian, non-Jewish scholars that Judaism grew out of a previous polytheism, with at least a female partner for Yahweh and possibly other gods as well. If Lisa posts in here you'll see her deny this strenuously.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism. There are definitely henotheistic strands of thought in the Bible, competing with the monotheistic strands. Monotheism won out.
Hey! I was writing this post! I googled to make sure I was spelling "henotheism" properly and everything!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism.
Thanks. I thought there was a word for it.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I always assume LDS were polytheistic in terms of doctine, but monotheistic in terms of actual worship. We don't have seperate worship services for God the Father, God the Son, we don't pray to them seperately, we just have the one temple, etc. I took a Jewish history course and they mentioned a female partner, but she didn't make the cut as beliefs became more unified so by second temple period, she was pretty much gone.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: Nearly all gods mentioned in the bible or the lifeless Idol types. The types of gods that only have as much power as man gives them.
... so, the other gods were actually Ori?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Growing up in an Orthodox Christian family (the eastern flavor), I had asked this same question, especially because of the Trinity concept. I was told that the religion is truly monotheistic, and that the Trinity is one of the “mysteries” about the nature of God, so I needn’t worry too much if I don’t understand. And that counts for all the “plurals” when the Bible is quoting God Himself. Now, for all other “false gods” that people had the tendency to worship and idolatrize, they were just that, false gods, because God is the only True One, hence religion is monotheistic. (At the time “religion” was the same as “Orthodox Christianity”, of course, as I wasn’t aware there was any other alternative)
Just my experience.
A.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You know, outside of the Bible, I never really figured out why polytheism is assumed to be inferior to monotheism. Aside from the fact that the first is discovered before the latter when playing Sid Meier's Civilization, it seems that most of the references that say monotheism is "better" than polytheism are actually in the scriptures/traditions/whatever of the monotheisms themselves rather than in any objective source.
So in essence, when people from one religion *do* criticize another as being polytheistic (not you Javert obviously), the issue seems to almost be comparable to a complaint about internal continuity rather than any objective problems. As if a really big Star Trek fan complained that in Star Wars, the old movies portrayed Vader as really cool, whereas later movies portrayed him as a whiny tool, as if it was a slight against Star Wars as a whole.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Also, from a pagan standpoint, Satan and the other angels would be considered gods or demigods. Judeo-Christianity gets around this simply by defining them as being less than gods.
It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism. There are definitely henotheistic strands of thought in the Bible, competing with the monotheistic strands. Monotheism won out.
Learn something new everyday. I would definitely say Mormonism is a henotheistic religion under those guidelines.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
In the beginning of Job, Satan gets permission from God to mess with the guy. I was taught that meant Satan always has to get permission to mess with our lives. I asked if that meant he had to ask God for permission before he went to war against Him. I was told he did. That really messed with me.
I lean towards Satan always needing permission as some sort of logical fallicy, but I haven't been doing much Bible study in the last 5 years. I mean, doesn't he have implicit permission as part of his being? There's no reason for him to exist except to tempt folks. I'd think he got permission when he took the job.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
In the beginning of Job, Satan gets permission from God to mess with the guy. I was taught that meant Satan always has to get permission to mess with our lives. I asked if that meant he had to ask God for permission before he went to war against Him. I was told he did. That really messed with me.
I lean towards Satan always needing permission as some sort of logical fallicy, but I haven't been doing much Bible study in the last 5 years. I mean, doesn't he have implicit permission as part of his being? There's no reason for him to exist except to tempt folks. I'd think he got permission when he took the job.
Job is most likely a fictional performance or play that was written by early pre-Moses Jews to portray the message of why there is suffering in the world even though God has the power to do away with it.When analyzing the book of Job, which is the oldest book in the Bible, one must note that its purpose was to teach why there is suffering in the world, and not how Satan gets permission to do what he does.
Though I don't have much other than educated guesses to back me up, it seems to me that Satan does not require God's EXPLICIT permission, as he obtains it in Job (although if God wants to disallow something Satan is doing, he will by all means do so. An example is when Jesus drives demons from Mary Magdelene), but requires OUR permission to do his devilish works. That is, when Satan is tempting people. We have the capacity to resist temptation and the power to ask for God's guidance and strength if the going gets tough, which means Satan is more or less at our mercy. The problem is that he can be very persuasive, even when the most obvious logic is against him.
When he's causing death and seemingly natural destruction, that probably does require God's permission, or at least a lack of pre-emptive intervention.
But as I said, these are only hypotheses based on what I've read and experienced. I don't have specific sources that say exactly what I'm saying.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I took a Jewish history course and they mentioned a female partner, but she didn't make the cut as beliefs became more unified so by second temple period, she was pretty much gone.
Yahweh: OK, huddle up. Jesus, good hustle today. This is the hardest duty of a coach, but must be done for the good of the team. Asherah, you're cut. And take Lilith with you. Satan, you're out. You keep tripping over your pride.
For everyone left, GO TEAM TRINITY!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Genesis explicitly states that Elohim (gods, plural) created the heavens and the earth. Modern Jews dismiss this plural usage as being similar to the royal "We."
You're mistaken, Glenn. The name Elohim is no more plural because it ends in "im" than the word glass is plural because it ends in "s".
In Hebrew, modifiers have to match what they are modifying in number and gender. That's how we know, for example, that the word "even" (stone) is feminine. Because it's modified as "even gedolah", and not "even gadol".
When we speak of "elohim acherim" (other gods", the modifier is plural, because the word in that case is plural. But the Torah says "vayomer Elohim", and not "vayomeru Elohim" for "And God said", which pretty much establishes that it's singular.
You've heard of Johns Hopkins? Was it named after two guys named John? No. Despite the fact that normally, the word "Johns" would indicate more than one "John".
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Cultural anthropologists, however, take notice of the same thing you see. Up until the exile to Babylon, the bible refers to the Hebrew god as if he is only one of many. After the exile to Babylon, he becomes "The One True God."
Again, you're mistaken. There's no indication that God is referred to in the plural anywhere in the Bible.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think it is reasonably well accepted among non-Christian, non-Jewish scholars that Judaism grew out of a previous polytheism, with at least a female partner for Yahweh and possibly other gods as well. If Lisa posts in here you'll see her deny this strenuously.
Only because it's untrue.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:You're mistaken, Glenn. The name Elohim is no more plural because it ends in "im" than the word glass is plural because it ends in "s".
You're entitled to your beliefs Lisa. The bit about the "Royal We" I got from the bible at a temple where I attended a friend's son's Bar Mitzvah. In general, those that study biblical linguistics (without fundamentalist prejudice) recognize that elohim is plural. And speaking of feminine modifiers, some of the oldest existing texts of genesis indicate that the creator gods were feminine.
Changing topics (and audience, since Lisa will surely not appreciate this next bit).
There's a good book (depending on your point of view, I guess) called "When God was a Woman," that posits that religion began when people asked the question "where did I come from?" The answer, of course, is "from your mother," and in turn from her mother, and so on, which implies an infinite regression. Seeking an ultimate answer, the first mother in the line then is the original creator, and therefore: God.
The book goes on to point out that before some point, early humankind must not have been able to make the connection between sexual activity and procreation. Before that connection was made, men were not considered part of the procreative process, and thus, didn't have any relations except to their mother. The author of the book says that archaeological findings before a certain time show that there were no idols of male gods, only female ones. The discovery that men were part of the procreative process threw previous religious claims into a cocked hat, and men retaliated by claiming that only men could create life, and that women were merely vessels for the man's seed. At this point the male god was invented, and gods changed from being the single head of the female line, to multiple gods serving various purposes.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I read the title as "Judo-Christian". I was expecting something... well... more violent and, as such, more entertaining.
Carry on.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As I say: Strenuously.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I read the title as "Judo-Christian". I was expecting something... well... more violent and, as such, more entertaining.
Carry on.
Judo-Christians...hmmmm...do they chop through wooden crosses?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Judo practitioners generally don't do a lot of board-breaking, If I understand correctly. It's more of a wrestling/throwing art that derives from the empty-handed art of the samurai. There wasn't a lot of point in the samurai developing powerful empty-handed punches/chops. The heavy armor worn during battle made that largely pointless. It's usually easier, with a heavily-armored opponent, to use the fact that the armor is heavy and makes getting back up difficult against him.
Umm, sorry to derail.
[ December 08, 2007, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, there is the Karatist Preacher Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, as usual, thinks she owns the Hebrew language, and knows better than all the translators whether the Creator said "Let US make man in OUR image." (Gen. 1:26)
I will agree with you Lisa, about the Hebrew view of deity not deriving from any ancestral polytheism. There is a lot of errant nonsense masquerading as scholarship these days when it comes to religious history. There is bound to be someone who can be quoted to support any warped view of history one might fancy. When Jews were not mistaking the gods of Egypt or the baals of surrounding nations for manifestations of their own God, they were monotheists--all the way back to Abraham, Noah, and Adam. Jews deserve credit for this, and it should not be denied them by modern revisionists who want to deny anything miraculous.
The dispute is over whether Christians with their Trinitarian beliefs still have a right to call themselves monotheists. We do not believe in a huge pantheon of gods. We believe in Three Persons who are so closely united in purpose it is fair to call them One. We find grounds supporting this belief in both Old and New Testaments.
One of the classic examples in the Old Testament establishing there is more than One Person who is God is King David's Psalm where he recounted his vision: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" (Psalms 110:1; NKJV.) Who is David's Lord, and Who is the other LORD?
When I brought this up some time ago, Lisa claimed that the one David was referring to as his Lord was Abraham. I will leave it to the reader to decide for himself if that interpretation really is convincing. I would ask, how many enemies did Abraham have? And since when is Abraham, who is dead, anybody's Lord?
[ December 08, 2007, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:You're mistaken, Glenn. The name Elohim is no more plural because it ends in "im" than the word glass is plural because it ends in "s".
You're entitled to your beliefs Lisa.
Glenn, you can't simply label informed knowledge of the Hebrew language "beliefs".
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: The bit about the "Royal We" I got from the bible at a temple where I attended a friend's son's Bar Mitzvah.
Nice. Any place calling itself a "temple" is probably not going to be all that much when it comes to Jewish scholarship. And while it's true that the royal "we" is used -- once -- in Genesis, that's not why the name Elohim isn't plural. It isn't plural because anyone who knows Hebrew knows that if singular verbs are used with a noun, the noun is singular. Period. There are no exceptions in the entire Hebrew language.
The adjective kadim is singular, because it is, despite ending with "im". And yes, there is a word "elohim" that means "gods". But the name Elohim, which is used for God in the Torah, is singular. No one with the most minimal literacy in Hebrew would claim otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: In general, those that study biblical linguistics (without fundamentalist prejudice) recognize that elohim is plural.
Yes. The word "elohim" is plural. The name Elohim is not.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: And speaking of feminine modifiers, some of the oldest existing texts of genesis indicate that the creator gods were feminine.
That's not true. Produce one. Produce a single source that references one. Not two. Just a single one. You won't be able to do it, because Genesis contains nothing of the sort. In any version whatsoever. Support your claim or retract it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, as usual, thinks she owns the Hebrew language, and knows better than all the translators whether the Creator said "Let US make man in OUR image." (Gen. 1:26)
It absolutely does say that. And that's a case of the royal "we". Furthermore, it's there to teach the lesson that you shouldn't think it's beneath you to consult with those who may be less than you before doing something.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The dispute is over whether Christians with their Trinitarian beliefs still have a right to call themselves monotheists. We do not believe in a huge pantheon of gods. We believe in Three Persons who are so closely united in purpose it is fair to call them One. We find grounds supporting this belief in both Old and New Testaments.
There's no plurality in God in the Hebrew Bible. God is One. Not "it's fair to call them One." Not a Certs style "It's three -- three -- three gods in one." But One.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One of the classic examples in the Old Testament establishing there is more than One Person who is God is King David's Psalm where he recounted his vision: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" (Psalms 110:1; NKJV.) Who is David's Lord, and Who is the other LORD?
That's one of the problems with relying on translations, Ron. The verse in question reads in the original:
quote:A Psalm of David: Hashem said to my lord, sit at My right until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.
We've been through this over and over, Ron. Those of you who want to wade through the whole discussion can do so here, on AI Jane.
Adonai is a name used biblically for God. Jews are wont to use that pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton (the four letter name of God that we don't pronounce) as well. In fact, we often place the vowels for Adonai on the consonants for the Tetragrammaton, and some people who were unaware of this practice attempted to pronounce the Tetragrammaton with those vowels and got "Jehovah", which is where that particular mistaken version of God's name came from.
Because Jews pronounce the Tetragrammaton as Adonai, from the word meaning "my Lord", many biblical translations translate that name as "my Lord".
On the other hand, the word adoni is only ever used for human beings. And the verse in question reads "God said to my lord (or my master)." It either refers to David himself (meaning that it was a Psalm written about David by someone else), or David wrote it, and it was referring to Abraham, who is called "adoni" by the Hittites in Genesis.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: When I brought this up some time ago, Lisa claimed that the one David was referring to as his Lord was Abraham. I will leave it to the reader to decide for himself if that interpretation really is convincing. I would ask, how many enemies did Abraham have? And since when is Abraham, who is dead, anybody's Lord?
You're bending the truth a bit, Ron, by mistranslating adoni as "Lord", rather than "lord". The word adoni is absolutely never applied to God anywhere in the Bible. And the name Adonai is absolutely never applied to a human being in the Bible.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:That's not true. Produce one. Produce a single source that references one. Not two. Just a single one. You won't be able to do it, because Genesis contains nothing of the sort. In any version whatsoever. Support your claim or retract it.
quote:"Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'
"Again (v., 27), how could Adam be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also? The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day. But in the Kabbalah we find that the Ancient of Days conforms himself simultaneously into the Father and the Mother, and thus begets the Son. Now this Mother is Elohim."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Without necessarily agreeing with Lisa, I must say that your source seems to be playing word games, Glenn.
quote:it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring.
I'm sorry, but this is just so much noise. It would go right into your average alchemy text; it does not belong in a historical discussion. Especially when the writer is trying to use syllable likenesses to read the minds of people three thousand years dead, who may not even have pronounced the syllables the same way! There are only so many syllables the human throat can produce; just because one of them has a particular meaning in one context, doesn't mean you can bring that meaning over to all other contexts in which it appears!
Posted by Lostincyberspace (Member # 11228) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Growing up in an Orthodox Christian family (the eastern flavor), I had asked this same question, especially because of the Trinity concept. I was told that the religion is truly monotheistic, and that the Trinity is one of the “mysteries” about the nature of God, so I needn’t worry too much if I don’t understand. And that counts for all the “plurals” when the Bible is quoting God Himself. Now, for all other “false gods” that people had the tendency to worship and idolatrize, they were just that, false gods, because God is the only True One, hence religion is monotheistic. (At the time “religion” was the same as “Orthodox Christianity”, of course, as I wasn’t aware there was any other alternative)
Just my experience.
A.
No that is the ascended Ori that give the priors power.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
In the beginning of Job, Satan gets permission from God to mess with the guy. I was taught that meant Satan always has to get permission to mess with our lives. I asked if that meant he had to ask God for permission before he went to war against Him. I was told he did. That really messed with me.
I lean towards Satan always needing permission as some sort of logical fallicy, but I haven't been doing much Bible study in the last 5 years. I mean, doesn't he have implicit permission as part of his being? There's no reason for him to exist except to tempt folks. I'd think he got permission when he took the job.
I'm writing my thesis on Satan and I have this view of him and his role that makes perfect sense to me until I get into Revelations. Then it all kind of goes out the window. His part and the descriptions of his nature in terms of the War are sadly the adopted theological view from the Medieval Period til now. Everything else points to a spiritual being(s) playing a much hated part in the cosmic play directed by God himself. Yeah, he gets carried away but I think that Christianity shot itself in the foot when its began to retrospectively beat up on Satan.
Does anyone know where the line "I am the Eternal, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Eternal do all these things [Isaiah 45:5-7]" falls in the timeline of Jewish thelogy? It has intrigued me lately as it seems support a clearly defined monotheism. And then sometime just before the birth of Christianity somebody screwed it up with the introduction of dualities.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lostincyberspace:
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: [...] this same question, especially because of the Trinity concept. [...]
No that is the ascended Ori that give the priors power.
If this is not a joke (you never know around here), I'd specify that I was responding to the OP (and I thought that the context was clear), and it just came after the “Ori” reference chronologically, without having anything to do with it (unless the Ori believe also in Trinity!)
A.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Shanna, I'm curious, is your thesis based on the idea that Satan is an actual entity or just a human personification of evil and temptation? I'm torn on the question myself.
On the one hand, if evil is just doing what God wouldn't, it doesn't make any sense to me for Him to have personified the idea. On the other, who gave Eve permission to sin before she had the knowledge herself?
Unless she and Adam already had the knowledge of good and evil and eating from the tree was them choosing evil and not just learning how. It seems awful complicated.
I kind of wish God had stated how things work explicitly for us instead of letting everything filter in through scribes who had to interpret everything by the culture of their time. When folks are out worshipping golden calves, you're going to make reference to other gods even if they're not real. The concept is real for the intended audience anyway.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Without necessarily agreeing with Lisa, I must say that your source seems to be playing word games, Glenn.
quote:it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring.
I'm sorry, but this is just so much noise. It would go right into your average alchemy text; it does not belong in a historical discussion. Especially when the writer is trying to use syllable likenesses to read the minds of people three thousand years dead, who may not even have pronounced the syllables the same way! There are only so many syllables the human throat can produce; just because one of them has a particular meaning in one context, doesn't mean you can bring that meaning over to all other contexts in which it appears!
Without even addressing the religious aspects, I completely agree with KoM that what Glenn posted is nonsense. I'm going to take it as an admission on Glenn's part that his claim was false.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I kind of wish God had stated how things work explicitly for us instead of letting everything filter in through scribes who had to interpret everything by the culture of their time.
Well, that would first require that a god actually exist.... Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Don't start that on this thread. This is about whether Christians/Jews are polytheists, or ever were polytheists, not whether the gods they worship exist.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Shanna, I'm curious, is your thesis based on the idea that Satan is an actual entity or just a human personification of evil and temptation? I'm torn on the question myself.
On the one hand, if evil is just doing what God wouldn't, it doesn't make any sense to me for Him to have personified the idea. On the other, who gave Eve permission to sin before she had the knowledge herself?
Unless she and Adam already had the knowledge of good and evil and eating from the tree was them choosing evil and not just learning how. It seems awful complicated.
I kind of wish God had stated how things work explicitly for us instead of letting everything filter in through scribes who had to interpret everything by the culture of their time. When folks are out worshipping golden calves, you're going to make reference to other gods even if they're not real. The concept is real for the intended audience anyway.
I would say my thesis supposes that he is an actual being. Though there are also a number of passages in the Old Testament and other apocrypha that would suggest that there are multiple beings who act as "a satan."
The more I read, the more I find that the best solution to the problem of evil is to simply stop seeing it as a problem. One can either see God as "all good" or as "all things." The latter option solves the problem. God is now the starting point from which everything else branches. The other solution...remove the word "evil." You know the line, "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." I've read another translation which reads, "lead us not into trial but deliver us from temptation." From this perspective Satan is not evil or even a tempter. He is an "adversary" or a "tester." He presents the trial or test and either man passes or he falls into temptation.
So what is perceived as evil is simply the means by which man proves his loyalty to God. What happened to Job was not "evil" but merely a series of unfortunate events by which Job was able to show is true devotion.
And the majority of the Bible supports this reading of Satan/Devil and his nature and function. Its only when you get into the late Paulian works and Revelations that it all starts to go to hell, literally. That's where the idea of "Satan as the personification of Evil" really takes over.
As for idols and other gods, I just remember when I took a class on Gnosticism and alot of those lines and scenes were brought up to support that idea that the God of the Jews was himself a false god and he knew it, hence all the ridiculous jealousy, anger, and insecurity.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Shanna, I hope it will appeal to you as reasonable to consider that the following passages are talking about Satan (Lucifer), and explain his original fall:
Ezekiel 28:11-19 Isaiah 14:12-14
Some scholars (mainly those who wish to deny anything miraculous, like actually inspired prophecy) try to deny that these passages speak of Lucifer in heaven. They note that the passage in Ezekiel starts out addressed to the king of Tyre, and the one in Isaiah starts out addressed to the king of Babylon.
But could these prophecies not be addressing the spiritual power behind these thrones? When was it ever true of the earthly king of Tyre--"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God....Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth....Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."
And is it not a bit far-fetched to regard the following as mere metaphors applied to a mere human, even the king of Babylon: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" And: "...you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High."
These passages tell us the nature of Lucifer's rebellion against God, what his ambition was, why He fell. With these the references to the war in heaven given in Revelation 12 make perfect sense. (Lucifer enlisted one-third of the angels of heaven into his rebellion. Those angels who fell have come to this earth, and are now called devils who are led by The Devil.)
I hope you will not let the modern revisionists cheat you out of these valid insights into the origin of sin and the original fall of Lucifer.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
KoM: The source I linked is not by any means the place where I first heard that Elohim had feminine characteristics. She asked for one corroborating source, so I searched for one, rather than attempting to retrace the path that I followed about 10 years ago which is rather vague in memory. Perhaps I should have highlighted the part I was looking for in the first place.
quote:The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word.
quote:I'm going to take it as an admission on Glenn's part that his claim was false.
Lisa, do you claim that ALH (Eloh) is not feminine?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is about whether Christians/Jews are polytheists, or ever were polytheists, not whether the gods they worship exist.
Have you not yet figured out that you don't get to say what threads are about? Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Don't start that on this thread. This is about whether Christians/Jews are polytheists, or ever were polytheists, not whether the gods they worship exist.
Being the person who started it, this is somewhat my thread*. And as far as I'm concerned Tom can go off on whatever tangents he wants.
*I, of course, understand that this is OSC's website. But since I do have the ability to delete this thread should I desire, it could be argued that I have some responsibility for it.
That, and it is fun to pretend I have a tiny bit of power. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Shanna, I hope it will appeal to you as reasonable to consider that the following passages are talking about Satan (Lucifer), and explain his original fall:
Ezekiel 28:11-19 Isaiah 14:12-14
Some scholars (mainly those who wish to deny anything miraculous, like actually inspired prophecy) try to deny that these passages speak of Lucifer in heaven. They note that the passage in Ezekiel starts out addressed to the king of Tyre, and the one in Isaiah starts out addressed to the king of Babylon.
But could these prophecies not be addressing the spiritual power behind these thrones?
No. God has no problem speaking directly to "satan", as in Zechariah 3:2.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: When was it ever true of the earthly king of Tyre--"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God....Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth....Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."
That's a reference to the fact that Hiram of Tyre helped build the Temple of Solomon. The royal house of Tyre had a great deal of merit because of that, and the king of Tyre God is speaking to here through Ezekiel is saying that he pissed it all away.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And is it not a bit far-fetched to regard the following as mere metaphors applied to a mere human, even the king of Babylon: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"
Are you unaware that Nebuchadnezzar considered himself a deity? Furthermore, Isaiah his words to the king of Babylon by calling them a parable (14:4).
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: These passages tell us the nature of Lucifer's rebellion against God, what his ambition was, why He fell.
No. There's no such thing as "Lucifer", and the morning star is something everyone has seen. The parable used by Isaiah likens Nebuchadnezzar to it, because Venus (the planet called the morning star -- and evening star) rises and falls. Just like Nebuchadnezzar rose, and then fell.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: KoM: The source I linked is not by any means the place where I first heard that Elohim had feminine characteristics. She asked for one corroborating source, so I searched for one, rather than attempting to retrace the path that I followed about 10 years ago which is rather vague in memory. Perhaps I should have highlighted the part I was looking for in the first place.
quote:The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word.
quote:I'm going to take it as an admission on Glenn's part that his claim was false.
Lisa, do you claim that ALH (Eloh) is not feminine?
Yes, Glenn, I do. It is not feminine in form, and there's not a single place in the Bible where a feminine adjective or verb modifies it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Even if the word is grammatically feminine, that doesn't mean a thing. In French, the word for a man's shirt (chemise) is feminine, and the word for a woman's shirt (chemisier) is masculine. This doesn't mean that once upon a time French men wore women's clothing and French women wore men's clothing.
By the way, I know virtually nothing about Hebrew. I just know that asserting something about a person or thing's real gender based on the grammatical gender of the word for that thing is flawed.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I am sad for you, Lisa. Jews have been greatly favored and privileged, but because of your own unbelief you have cheated yourselves out of so much more. So much more you could understand. So much more you could enjoy in a closer relationship with God. So much more hope.
I realize the mistreatment of you by the Christian majority throughout the Christian era has prejudiced you against seeing many obvious truths in the Bible, that are so easy for us to see. But I trust that God yet has a way of saving even people in your unique situation. He must still regard the Jews as His special friends, because of the way they have stood so faithfully for the Sabbath through the ages, and because of the way they have preserved the Scriptures so carefully. Whenever someone expresses doubt that the weekly cycle has been preserved intact since Biblical times, Adventists like me only have to point to the Jews, and note that they have never lost track of the Sabbath. When people express doubt that the Scriptures could be maintained accurately for thousands of years, all believers today can point to the faithful integrity of the Jewish scribes, and the creative methods they employed to ensure accurate copying.
You Jews have been a blessing to us, and some of us do appreciate it. To a large extent, your suffering and sacrifices have been for us--even if too often they were caused by us, too. I for one choose to think well of you, despite how you may exasperate us now and then when we try to reason with you. See you in heaven. We can sort things out then.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pat pat*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I often reflect on how much valuable ink could have been saved if the people who systematised grammar had only thought of using "First form", "Second form", and "Third form" instead of "Masculine", "Feminine", "Neutral". However, I think Glenn may actually have been saying that ALH (heh, that's the Alarm Handler in BaBar-speak, but I digress) actually means 'woman', or 'female god', or some such, rather than having the feminine grammatical form. I have no idea if this is correct or not, of course.
In any case, even if such an assertion were true, you could not reason from there to "Elohim is formed from ALH and IM". There are only so many syllables; that one of them is also a word in its own right does not mean that you can assign its meaning to any other word in which the syllable happens to appear! You might as well assert that 'that' is formed from 'the' and 'at', or that 'assert' is formed from 'ass' with the suffix '-er', thus meaning "someone who makes an ass of himself". This is mind-reading across three millennia, apparently in support of a particular religious agenda; in other words, it is just as reliable as any other form of necromancy.
Perhaps I ought to say that I still think, based on the archeological evidence, that the Jews at some point did worship a mother goddess along with Yahweh; I just don't think word games prove any such thing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am sad for you, Lisa. Jews have been greatly favored and privileged, but because of your own unbelief you have cheated yourselves out of so much more. So much more you could understand. So much more you could enjoy in a closer relationship with God. So much more hope.
I'm tempted to whistle you for proselytizing. Instead, I'll reply on your own level. I'll probably get whistled myself for doing so, and maybe this thread will get locked. But you seem to be in great need of a wake-up call.
First of all, we do not have "unbelief". Rather, we believe in the truth, while you believe in a lie. You wouldn't even have the Bible had we not preserved it, and yet you have the temerity to try and tell us what it says and means?
Our relationship with God is privileged. Yours exists only in potential. And the potential is great. But you choose to take refuge in fantasies. I don't mean to demean fantasies. I read science fiction and fantasy, and I enjoy them a lot. For example, I enjoyed Steven Brust's To Reign in Heaven, in which he presents the fable of Lucifer and the war in Heaven. It's fun, and I've read it more than once. But it's contrary to the truth given us by God, so it's not to be taken seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I realize the mistreatment of you by the Christian majority throughout the Christian era has prejudiced you against seeing many obvious truths in the Bible, that are so easy for us to see.
In fact, it's seemed like a nightmare. Like letting the inmates out and having them run things. You make up an idolatrous fantasy, and then kill us because we're loyal to God and the truth. What could be more nightmarish?
But just because you're not trying to burn us alive right now, Ron, doesn't mean that you've really changed all that much. You still cling to the same sad fantasy, despite the fact that the truth is readily available to you.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But I trust that God yet has a way of saving even people in your unique situation.
"Saving", forsooth. God is not the "malign thug" you clearly believe Him to be. We are not born into spiritual debt that requires "saving". We are all born with free will. We can choose to do right and we can choose to do wrong. We don't require your "salvation", Ron. Nor do you. It's a cross between emotional blackmail and a snipe hunt. All you need to do is obey God. Instead, you blaspheme Him.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: He must still regard the Jews as His special friends, because of the way they have stood so faithfully for the Sabbath through the ages, and because of the way they have preserved the Scriptures so carefully. Whenever someone expresses doubt that the weekly cycle has been preserved intact since Biblical times, Adventists like me only have to point to the Jews, and note that they have never lost track of the Sabbath. When people express doubt that the Scriptures could be maintained accurately for thousands of years, all believers today can point to the faithful integrity of the Jewish scribes, and the creative methods they employed to ensure accurate copying.
We've done a lot more than just copy words on parchment, Ron. The Torah that God gave us is a lot more than that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You Jews have been a blessing to us, and some of us do appreciate it. To a large extent, your suffering and sacrifices have been for us--even if too often they were caused by us, too. I for one choose to think well of you, despite how you may exasperate us now and then when we try to reason with you. See you in heaven. We can sort things out then.
We were despised and forsaken of men. We were wounded because of your transgressions, and crushed because of your iniquities. We were oppressed, though we humbled ourselves and opened not our mouths, as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb, yea, we opened not our mouths. By oppression and judgment we were taken away. We were numbered with the transgressors, yet we bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And behold, there was a great surprise in the land, because KoM decided midway through his sentence that he didn't really want to get banned just to make some cheap shots at Lisa expense. For yea, verily, she is not worth it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, you do not have faith in the inspiration of your own Scriptures. You will say different, that you have SOME faith, in VARYING degrees of inspiration. And that is exactly what I meant by unbelief. God inspired your Scriptures, and they are a lot more valuable than you seem to know.
Too often, too many Jews get snippy even when we Christians are trying to be nice to you. There is no need for this. Does it really make you feel better to rail against us? Surely you cannot blame me for seeing things from my viewpoint. And from my viewpoint, I trust that the Lord can save you as He does me, and we will be able to sort these matters out in the clarity and sanity and peacefulness of heaven. If you cannot accept that, then there is nothing more that I can give you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Too often, too many Jews get snippy even when we Christians are trying to be nice to you.
Oh, come on. You're not trying to be nice to her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To a large extent, your suffering and sacrifices have been for us--even if too often they were caused by us, too. I for one choose to think well of you, despite how you may exasperate us now and then when we try to reason with you.
These sentences cannot go reasonably together.
Let's translate this in terms that really don't change the meaning, but illustrate just why Ron isn't 'trying to be nice':
"Look, honey, I'm grateful for all the sacrifices you've made. Your job, putting up with me smacking you around for years, my cheating on you and lying about you to other people, all that stuff. And even though you still annoy the hell outta me now, I'll be the bigger man and think well of you when you're being stupid."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, you are not as perceptive as you seem to think you are, and you certainly are not helping with your misrepresentations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rakeesh is almost exactly as perceptive as he thinks he is. And if you don't realize why Jews "get snippy" when you are "trying to be nice" in the fashion above, you're not.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh is completely mistaken, and so are you, Tom. What do you know of these matters? Please butt out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you do not have faith in the inspiration of your own Scriptures. You will say different, that you have SOME faith, in VARYING degrees of inspiration. And that is exactly what I meant by unbelief. God inspired your Scriptures, and they are a lot more valuable than you seem to know.
He did a lot more than merely "inspire" them, Ron. He dictated the first 5 books, word for word. He spoke to the prophets. And He inspired the writers of the remaining books.
And I know that they are of inestimable value. I also know that they are a tiny drop in the vast sea of knowledge that God gave us.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Too often, too many Jews get snippy even when we Christians are trying to be nice to you.
"Nice". Heh. Your "niceness" reminds me of when the Pope had the gall to "forgive" us. Spare me your "niceness".
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is no need for this. Does it really make you feel better to rail against us? Surely you cannot blame me for seeing things from my viewpoint.
I can, Ron. I truly can. And I do. I blame you for not only ignoring the truth, but for vilifying it, or damning it with faint praise.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And from my viewpoint, I trust that the Lord can save you as He does me, and we will be able to sort these matters out in the clarity and sanity and peacefulness of heaven. If you cannot accept that, then there is nothing more that I can give you.
And was I asking for anything from you, Ron? There's nothing to be saved from.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let me be clearer, Ron: whether you intend it or not, your communications to Lisa (and, I can only assume, to all Jews of your acquaintance on this topic) are smug and self-righteous in tone. You may not perceive this. This is, however, how they sound. When I read them, I get this mental image of you attempting to smile beatifically while patting the nearest Jew on his or her cute little head. And I'm not even Jewish.
So, yeah, I can understand why a Jew might "get snippy" when you take that tone. If you can't, you are less perceptive than we are.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh is completely mistaken, and so are you, Tom. Please butt out.
Are you under the misapprehension that this is some sort of private hunting preserve for you, Ron? Rakeesh and Tom sometimes agree with me and sometimes don't. In this case, they may not (probably don't, in fact) agree with me, but that doesn't mean they have to sit quietly while you behave inappropriately. This is Hatrack, Ron. Not Ronsville. And all threads are open to all people. There are no private discussions. Your "butt out" is completely inappropriate and out of line.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But I believe you do have something you need to be saved from, Lisa. This world is about to end, and the Day of God's Judgment has already begun. And you do not even know what the issues are.
What I was specifically offering you was a provisional acceptance despite our differences. This was an act of generosity. You respond with more intolerance.
And it is Rakeesh and Tom whose comments were totally inappropriate and unqualified. I cannot make them mind their own business, but I certainly can request that they butt out, as they should. That is freedom of speech, too.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I could just imagine these two in a room together.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Oy. Ron, the world has been about to end for thousands of years. One of these days it's bound to happen, with God's help or not, but what makes you so damn certain that you and yours are the first ones to finally detect that the date was, really, for sure, finally, at hand?
Is your arrogance fueled by this certainty, or did it proceed it, perhaps fueling the certainty itself, for certainly if *you* believe it, it cannot possibly be wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This world is about to end, and the Day of God's Judgment has already begun.
I assume you sold short the Dow Jones and the Nasdaq? Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This world is about to end, and the Day of God's Judgment has already begun. And you do not even know what the issues are.
Do you have an exact date? 'Cause I have plans this weekend, and the judgment day would really put a wrench in that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Matt, do you want an answer? Or is this just rant?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Matt, do you want an answer? Or is this just rant?
I'm curious, though I doubt the signs you recognize will be much different in quality than the signs seen by countless other doomsdayers before you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The SDA church has a history of predicting the end of the world.
The world, on a large scale, has a history of pretty much not ending.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus and Javert--far be it from me to spoil your fun.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And it is Rakeesh and Tom whose comments were totally inappropriate and unqualified. I cannot make them mind their own business, but I certainly can request that they butt out, as they should. That is freedom of speech, too.
Ron, this is a community and when one person is acting out, others can be expected to speak up. Have you considered that when *everyone* is misperceiving what you say that perhaps the problem is that you aren't saying it very well?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Steven, the world only has to end once, for it to no longer be a laughing matter.
The question is what is the correct interpretation of Bible prophecy concerning the end of the world. That is something you would have to judge for yourself after considering a study of comparative Bible texts. It would be a fairly lengthy study, because it is not a simple subject.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Steven, the world only has to end once, for it to no longer be a laughing matter.
True. But people only have to think the world is ending and make fools of themselves a few times before it starts becoming hilarious.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Matt, who is "everyone"? The usual handfull of people who always like to jump on anything I say are not everyone.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Javert, I have never set any dates.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...people only have to think the world is ending and make fools of themselves a few times before it starts becoming hilarious."
Man, that was funny.
I've always wondered, how do you come back from some thing like that? What do you say to people the week or two after you've sold everything and gone to sit on top of a hill with the rest of your little group of crazies?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
People have been anticipating the End of Days since Jesus died. I'm sure someone thought it would happen within the week.
Two thousand years later and we're still waiting. Its like every believer wants to think that their life is so rough and so important that they'll get to witness the apocalypse.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Matt, who is "everyone"? The usual handfull of people who always like to jump on anything I say are not everyone.
Well the corollary is that when someone calls someone out inappropriately then someone else will point it out. There are plenty of people here willing to tell Tom, Rakeesh, or myself to shut it if we're out of line. They are currently silent.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Matt, who is "everyone"? The usual handfull of people who always like to jump on anything I say are not everyone.
I don't remember ever jumping on anything you've said, and I think you're being a pretty huge jerk to Lisa.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You guys like to jump on anything I say probably because I am so articulate and always give you a good fight, and you enjoy it. Go on, admit it.
Jon Boy. Welcome to the club.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Ron, I think you fail The Bunny Ears Test.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think the point is that it you AREN'T putting up a good fight, atleast not in the sense that anyone is feeling particularly challenged on a scholarly level.
Just insulted and frustrated.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The question is what is the correct interpretation of Bible prophecy concerning the end of the world. That is something you would have to judge for yourself after considering a study of comparative Bible texts. It would be a fairly lengthy study, because it is not a simple subject.
Then perhaps it's not such a simple answer. Or perhaps you see patterns where they don't exist. It's an awfully large and rich world. It would be hard *not* to see the fulfillment of any given prophecy in some event that's happened somewhere in the world if you're looking hard enough.
Case in point:
quote:"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb." The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654
This prophecy made the rounds on the internet shortly after 9/11 and was said to predict the attack. Many parallels between the attack and the prophecy were suggested. The only problem is that it was not written by Notradamus in 1654. It was written by a Canadian student in the 90's in a paper about how the vague symbolism of prophecies can be applied to many contemporary events. How are you immune from the same false interpretation that saw this prophecy as a valid prediction of the events of 9/11?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But I believe you do have something you need to be saved from, Lisa. This world is about to end, and the Day of God's Judgment has already begun. And you do not even know what the issues are.
It's true that I'm not quite clear on what your issues are, Ron, but those don't really concern me. As for the world ending... don't be silly. It already ended in 1873. I mean 1874. Oh, wait, I mean 1878. Or 1914. Hell, it ended in 1918, 1920 and 1925. Whatever. No, that's the JWs, right? You're the 1844 folks. I can't keep you straight.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What I was specifically offering you was a provisional acceptance despite our differences. This was an act of generosity. You respond with more intolerance.
White man's burden, huh, Ron? Save it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: People have been anticipating the End of Days since Jesus died. I'm sure someone thought it would happen within the week.
Jesus himself thought it would happen within the lifetime of his disciples.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I am so articulate
If you are articulate, that will speak for itself. The people that speak generally about being smarter or more articulate than those they disagree with generally are not. Besides, who cares how articulate you are? Plenty of people have been very articulate while being very wrong at the same time.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You guys like to jump on anything I say probably because I am so articulate
And modest, too. <snicker>
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Would I be as much fun if I were incoherent? At least I can spell, surely you can give me that!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You guys like to jump on anything I say probably because I am so articulate and always give you a good fight, and you enjoy it. Go on, admit it.
Jon Boy. Welcome to the club.
You are so right. In fact, from the way you have reacted to Lisa (someone who believes the relationship my wife and I have is an abomination of sorts, so I'm not one to be expected to be charitable to her), it appears you have articulated your position far more well than you can imagine to all reading this thread.
It is unfortunate, however, that this particular position which you've articulated is akin to having one's head completely up in one's own nether-regions.
-Bok
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think you must crave my attention, too. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
According to urbandictionary "Lambert" means "anything that resembles or smells like poop".
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bok, you said: "...it appears you have articulated your position far more well than you can imagine...."
Don't you mean to say: "...it appears you have articulated your position far BETTER than you can imagine...." Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Grammar Nazis are still Nazis.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I looked up my last name.
I hate urbandictionary. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Threads, I don't know if I should dignify your juvenilia with notice, but perhaps you would be interested to know that in real dictionaries of name origins, "Lambert" derives from "Lambent Earth," and is usually defined as "Bright Land." This was a surprise to me, because for a long time I thought it suggested that a lamb-herder or shepherd were in my ancestry.
At least I use my real name, and do not hide behind something made up. Ahem.
And just because I kick you in the butt, that does not make me a goose-stepping Nazi.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
And when you say "hide," you really mean "protecting one's self and family from all the weirdos out there."
Did anyone in your life bother to teach you about internet safety or respect?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
And how do you know Threads isn't his real name?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Shanna, I can see where women would be especially concerned about that sort of thing, and I do not fault you for feeling a need for caution. But in the ten years I have been active online in public discussion boards, I have never used anything other than my real name. I feel it shows I am willing to stand behind what I say.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ron, your real name is just as meaningful to me as Threads' handle is. I'm not sure how he's "hiding" in any meaningful way by using a handle here.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Matt, I am sure you are a very intelligent person. (I am just wondering if you will disagree with that statement too.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I have no idea whether you are sure of that or not, sorry.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "...people only have to think the world is ending and make fools of themselves a few times before it starts becoming hilarious."
Man, that was funny.
I've always wondered, how do you come back from some thing like that? What do you say to people the week or two after you've sold everything and gone to sit on top of a hill with the rest of your little group of crazies?
Heh. yeah. It would be even MORE hilarious/ironic though if tomorrow the apocalypse came and I stepped outside and thought "wow I sure wish I'd listened to Ron."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm wondering how this impending end of the world thing jibes with Ron's claims about belief in evolution waning within a generation. Does that mean we've still got 20 years or so?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I feel it shows I am willing to stand behind what I say.
Just as long as it costs less than $200 link Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When discussions start to go like this, it really make me wish God would just take his chosen people up to heaven already so the rest of us don't have to listen to them any more Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You'd still have to listen to people like Ron, MC.
Sorry.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Heh.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"God already did take his chosen people to heaven. Two people went missing. No one noticed." *
*Anyone remember where this quote is from? I can't find it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From this thread:
quote: You guys like to jump on anything I say probably because I am so articulate and always give you a good fight, and you enjoy it. Go on, admit it.
quote:Matt, I am sure you are a very intelligent person. (I am just wondering if you will disagree with that statement too.)
Implying that Matt is only disagreeing with the previous post because Ron posted it.
quote:Lisa, you do not have faith in the inspiration of your own Scriptures. You will say different, that you have SOME faith, in VARYING degrees of inspiration. And that is exactly what I meant by unbelief. God inspired your Scriptures, and they are a lot more valuable than you seem to know.
Lisa's disagreement with Ron about translations stem from her lack of faith.
quote:Pooka, it seems to me that like Roman Catholics, Mormons in general are not well acquainted with their own church's actual teachings.
Those denying that Mormons teach that Jesus was a Lord of Kolob are simply ignorant (oh, and there's no need to post any evidence that they actually think that before calling them ignorant).
quote:You would be well advised to exercise better self-discipline, and not let your conceit about your own opinions do your talking.
It's my conceit that causes me to reach a different conclusion about evolution than Ron does.
quote:In my view you are the most cultic and fanatical and pitiable sort of brainwashed "true believers" of all, with your bondage to your cherished theory of evolution.
Fanaticism and brainwashing are the reason many people believe in evolution.
quote:Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science
It was mainstream opinion swaying him, not reasoned analysis that led to the ruling.
quote:If this were not true, he would have recognized that the scientific basis for Intelligent Design is far better than for evolution, because that is the factual reality that anyone who honestly evaluates the evidence for himself will agree.
Anyone who believes evolution is scientifically sound has not evaluated the evidence honestly.
What do all these quotes have in common? They assign motive or defect to those who deign to disagree with Ron's pronouncements on a given subject. Anyone who can't see the truth in what Ron is saying is either being dishonest, duped, or brainwashed. Or they haven't looked at the evidence. There's no room for simple error, or doubt, or for intelligent people to have reached a different conclusion.
The pattern is frighteningly clear at this point.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Nice summation, Dag; thanks for taking the time to make that post.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BTW, I'd like to apologize for my pre-bedtime post last night, Ron. It seemed funnier at the time, but then all sorts of stupid ideas tend to do so right before you go to sleep. It turned out to be out-of-bounds; I'd certainly never say that sort of thing to your face, so I shouldn't do it here.
I tend not to post in threads that get like this, as I feel I can only lower the signal-to-noise of it, and I hold myself to a higher standard of communicating, especially on Hatrack. My post is one more reason why.
I'm sorry Ron, for the needless insult I made.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: People have been anticipating the End of Days since Jesus died. I'm sure someone thought it would happen within the week.
Jesus himself thought it would happen within the lifetime of his disciples.
What copy of the Bible are you reading, it seems far different then the one I've got, could you send me a copy? Or I suppose you could just cite where Jesus said such a thing.
edit:
Ron: I've yet to insult you personally, but you have yet to own up to your comment that Mormons do not know their own doctrine in light of the fact you made a statement that is erroneous. Whether you acknowledge it or not, it won't bother me, but playing the condescending, "Oh Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do" martyr act gets tiresome.
The conversation has gotten very convoluted, is there a point you would like to rollback to Ron?
[ December 10, 2007, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What do you say to people the week or two after you've sold everything and gone to sit on top of a hill with the rest of your little group of crazies?
My great-great-granduncle on my mother's side did this. He was a Lithuanian nobleman who believed that the world was going to end, so he sold all his possessions and moved to Israel with a bunch of Germans in the late 1800s. When the world failed to end, many (if not most) of them -- including him -- concluded that it was their piety that had spared everyone else. Apparently this made him fairly insufferable, especially once he returned to his family and demanded that they feed and shelter him as compensation for his sacrifice.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The world, on a large scale, has a history of pretty much not ending.
*snort*
Also, Ron, this is for you. Hang it somewhere prominent -- you've earned it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Ron, are you okay? I've never noticed you before, but between this and some other threads, it seems like you're saying anything it takes in order to get people to dislike and think little of you. Is something going on?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, talking with (or at in some cases) Ron has reminded me of one of my favorite movies, even though with me that doesn't mean much since I've got dozens. Anyway, the movie is Malcolm X.
At some point in the film, Malcolm X is questioned regarding his expressed contempt and enmity with white people. (I'm very loosely paraphrasing here) He basically responds that the white man is in no position to insist on forgiveness, kindness, tolerance, or respect from the black man, due to the numerous crimes perpetrated by one race against the other.
He's got a point. And while I don't buy into the idea that a single member of a wider group, particularly one defined by congenital traits, can be either blamed or praised for the sins or virtues of the wider group...Ron, you're talking an awful lot about Christians as a group, and Jews as a group. So the point still applies: Christians are in no position to insist on mutual kindness and understanding and friendliness from Jews. We Christians as a group have far too much history, much of it recent, of really sticking it to the Jews to insist on that. If there's anything to be insisted upon, it's they that are in the position to insist on things from us.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:He's got a point. And while I don't buy into the idea that a single member of a wider group, particularly one defined by congenital traits, can be either blamed or praised for the sins or virtues of the wider group...Ron, you're talking an awful lot about Christians as a group, and Jews as a group. So the point still applies: Christians are in no position to insist on mutual kindness and understanding and friendliness from Jews. We Christians as a group have far too much history, much of it recent, of really sticking it to the Jews to insist on that. If there's anything to be insisted upon, it's they that are in the position to insist on things from us.
I think assessing stocks of blame is an utterly pointless task, that can only make things worse. Christians in part persecuted the Jews because they were angry over New Testament Christians being persecuted by the Jews. Why does it matter that tides favored the Christians who then became the very people they constantly preached against?
Jews are capable of hate, Christians are capable of hate, Tutsis are capable of hate, hutus are capable of hate, Manchu are capable of hate, the Han are capable of hate. OK so now what? I can't go back and check if my ancestors of many years ago persecuted the Jews. Who is going to reimburse my ancestor William Bradford who fled England amidst religious persecution and lost both his wife and son in the process? What about my great grandparents on both sides who crossed the planes in ox wagons and handcarts losing children and spouses in the process, who were then required to settle the God awful Utah valley?
What about gymnastic career I might have had if my coach had not been a religious bigot who turned me away from the sport forever?
What's done is done, and you don't help a wound heal by cutting it open again to assess how deep it was in the first place.
I'd much rather we get over the burdens our ancestors were unjustly forced to bear and focus on how we can all start enjoying each other's company now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What's done is done, and you don't help a wound heal by cutting it open again to assess how deep it was in the first place.
I'd much rather we get over the burdens our ancestors were unjustly forced to bear and focus on how we can all start enjoying each other's company now.
I mostly agree. Which is why I qualified my post numerous times. But I do recognize that, as a young white American citizen male, it's somewhat easier for me to be in a sort of mental place where I can say, "It's better if we drop all that crap from the old days."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What's done is done, and you don't help a wound heal by cutting it open again to assess how deep it was in the first place.
I'd much rather we get over the burdens our ancestors were unjustly forced to bear and focus on how we can all start enjoying each other's company now.
I mostly agree. Which is why I qualified my post numerous times. But I do recognize that, as a young white American citizen male, it's somewhat easier for me to be in a sort of mental place where I can say, "It's better if we drop all that crap from the old days."
Maybe so, but the easiness of a position makes it no less true. For some it is easy to forgive and forget, for others it's extremely difficult, we should applaud everyone who manages it. But there is more then enough injustice in the world to go around without us excusing our own conduct based on the past.
I don't owe anybody of any minority anything except to presently treat them as I would have them treat me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Noemon.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Javert, it's from Good Omens.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Just in case this thread gets locked, I want to apologize for offending people in this thread (other than Ron, of course). I've been trying really hard not to say things as insensitively as I've done in this thread, and while I know that "he made me do it" is infantile, I hope you all know that I only said what I did, the way I did, because I was intentionally responding to Ron in kind.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:At some point in the film, Malcolm X is questioned regarding his expressed contempt and enmity with white people. (I'm very loosely paraphrasing here) He basically responds that the white man is in no position to insist on forgiveness, kindness, tolerance, or respect from the black man, due to the numerous crimes perpetrated by one race against the other.
He's got a point.
He certainly does not. That would work if humans were a handful of borgs rather than distinct individuals, but we aren't, and no one is exempt from the obligation to behave decently because of wrongs done in past generations.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Reading this thread was exhausting. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He certainly does not. That would work if humans were a handful of borgs rather than distinct individuals, but we aren't, and no one is exempt from the obligation to behave decently because of wrongs done in past generations.
I'm afraid he does, Katie, because he wasn't advocating bad behaviors, just negative emotional and philosophical responses. It's also a bit different since he was speaking for a community, and in the context the representative of another community was speaking to him.
Is it decent to forgive someone who has wronged you horribly? I don't think decency is the right word. Virtuous, sure...but virtue isn't the same as decency.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I hope you all know that I only said what I did, the way I did, because I was intentionally responding to Ron in kind.
So you don't actually believe what you wrote?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think deliberately treating someone indecently when their only crime is to be the same color as someone who treated someone else of a different color badly in another time IS one of the minimum behaviors to be expected of a decent human being.
The whole point is that individuals DIDN'T wrong him horribly - someone else did, and he was blaming everyone of that color for it.
When you say he was speaking for a community, then you're saying that he was responding as, say, one borg discussing another. However, there is no such thing as collective guilt, only individual obligations.
[ December 10, 2007, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks Bok. Apology, of course, accepted.
BlackBlade, I did not make the statement you seem to think I did. I never said that Mormons knew little of their own doctrine because they didn't know about the lords of Kolob thing. I said that Mormons knew little of their own doctrine because so many do not know that when they say Jesus is the Son of God, they do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelicals do. That is a true statement, and it would have been well if everyone had just left it at that.
When someone claimed that Mormons do believe exactly the same, which I know is not true, in that context I asked him to explain about Jesus being one of the Lords of Kolob. Some of you have not felt that was a fair question. Fine. But the fact remains that Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is co-eternal and fully equal to the Father, and always has been. Any of you who think they do need to recheck their sources. This is indeed what most Evangelicals believe. They feel it is important, because only one who is truly and completely equal to God could atone for humanity's sin, and give them a new life. Even the life of an angel would not be of sufficient value, and he could not have the power or inherent virtue in himself to rise from the dead.
It was really not necessary to go into any of this. Some of you just would not accept that Mormons mean something different than Evangelicals do when they call Jesus the Son of God.
And as I also said, I am willing to accept Mormons as Christians anyway, and I am willing to vote for Romney anyway, because I am impressed by his personal "cult" of excellence.
Any problem is of the rabid rabble's own creation.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I said that Mormons knew little of their own doctrine because so many do not know that when they say Jesus is the Son of God, they do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelicals do.
That's nonsense. It means they know little of Evangelical doctrine. Which is perfectly fine.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I said that Mormons knew little of their own doctrine because so many do not know that when they say Jesus is the Son of God, they do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelicals do. That is a true statement. . . .
No, it's not. I think most Mormons are pretty aware that we have a different idea of the Godhead than other Christians do.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Ron, this Mormon believes that Christ is co-eternal with the Father. Mormon Theologian Blake Ostler is publishing a book called "Of God and Gods", you can see his take on the various heresies in the summary of the book linked here.
quote:These concepts may be summarized as follows:
1. The creation occurred by organizing the world not “from nothing” but from preexisting matter.
2. There was a grand council consisting of a plurality of gods in the beginning of the creation of this earth.
3. There was a Head God who presided over the council of gods.
4. The council of gods, under the direction of the Head God, appointed one God to preside over us in the work of creation and redemption.
5. Among these gods in the pre-earth council were intelligences who existed eternally without creation before they became mortal.
6. Humans have the potential to be gods because they are the same kind as God.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yeah, Mormons know that we believe in two distinct personages and most other religions don't. In fact, to showcase this is one of the reasons the first vision occurred.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Jon Boy, you said: "I think most Mormons are pretty aware that we have a different idea of the Godhead than other Christians do."
*Sigh* This is exactly what I've been saying.
But then what have all these other people been raving about, claiming there is no difference? I wonder which Mormons I am talking to at any given moment.
Look, all I have been trying to say is that when Gov. Romney said he believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he got away with something, and it placated Evangelicals. And I think it is cool that he did.
OK? Are we done now?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks, Kent.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I hope you all know that I only said what I did, the way I did, because I was intentionally responding to Ron in kind.
So you don't actually believe what you wrote?
You know I do. As I'm sure there are people on this board who believe that Jews will fry in hell forever. But things go more smoothly if controversial views of religion aren't shouted from the rooftops, and I've been trying to avoid that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa said: "But things go more smoothly if controversial views of religion aren't shouted from the rooftops, and I've been trying to avoid that."
So you have been trying to drown me out, Lisa?
I hope you at least appreciate I am not among those "who believe that Jews will fry in hell forever." As I think you know, I do not believe in an ever-burning hell. I believe the only hell is the Lake of Fire that will exist for a short time until everything bad is burned up to completion, after the millennium when the entire surface of the earth is turned into a molten state, as a first step in re-creating the earth. As for who is tossed into the Lake of Fire, Revelation 20:9 says the Devil, Beast, and False Prophet will be cast into the Lake of Fire, presumably along with those who beseiged the Holy City. No mention of Jews there.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I hope you at least appreciate I am not among those "who believe that Jews will fry in hell forever."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I hope you at least appreciate I am not among those "who believe that Jews will fry in hell forever." As I think you know, I do not believe in an ever-burning hell. I believe the only hell is the lake of fire that will exist for a short time until everything bad is burned up to completion, after the millennium when the entire surface of the earth is turned into a molten state, as a first step in re-creating the earth. As for who is tossed into the Lake of Fire, Revelation 20:9 says the Devil, Beast, and False Prophet will be cast into the lake of fire, presumably along with those who beseiged the Holy City.
That's only if our small, but brave band of companions fail in their quest to destroy the One Ring.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But the ring must be destroyed in the molten lava! That is your quest, is it not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky,
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Crap! I would have never engaged in our paradoxical enterprise had I but stopped to think about it.
Seriously though, you worship an evil deity. If your god does exist and have the character that you ascribe to him and want followers with the character you display, I think we're all screwed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent: Ron, this Mormon believes that Christ is co-eternal with the Father. Mormon Theologian Blake Ostler is publishing a book called "Of God and Gods", you can see his take on the various heresies in the summary of the book linked here.
quote:These concepts may be summarized as follows:
1. The creation occurred by organizing the world not “from nothing” but from preexisting matter.
2. There was a grand council consisting of a plurality of gods in the beginning of the creation of this earth.
3. There was a Head God who presided over the council of gods.
4. The council of gods, under the direction of the Head God, appointed one God to preside over us in the work of creation and redemption.
5. Among these gods in the pre-earth council were intelligences who existed eternally without creation before they became mortal.
6. Humans have the potential to be gods because they are the same kind as God.
Kent, is this a list of heresies or something else? (Principles?) You have this Mormon totally confused. I've never heard of any council of gods.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I said that Mormons knew little of their own doctrine because so many do not know that when they say Jesus is the Son of God, they do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelicals do. That is a true statement, and it would have been well if everyone had just left it at that.
I've never seen a Mormon who didn't acknowledge that when they say Jesus is the Son of God, they do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelicals do. I've had arguments with several about the importance of those differences, but the arguments presupposed the existence of those differences being accepted by both sides.
quote:When someone claimed that Mormons do believe exactly the same, which I know is not true, in that context I asked him to explain about Jesus being one of the Lords of Kolob.
No one said that.
quote:Some of you have not felt that was a fair question. Fine. But the fact remains that Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is co-eternal and fully equal to the Father, and always has been. Any of you who think they do need to recheck their sources.
First, it's entirely possible to acknowledge the differences while still thinking that your repeated use of the "Mormons think Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob" line is manipulative and dishonest.
Second, the post you responded to with that question did not say what you purport to be refuting.
quote:But then what have all these other people been raving about, claiming there is no difference? I wonder which Mormons I am talking to at any given moment.
Who has said this? No one has said there is no difference.
quote:OK? Are we done now?
Not until you link the basis for your Lords of Kolob statement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What copy of the Bible are you reading, it seems far different then the one I've got, could you send me a copy? Or I suppose you could just cite where Jesus said such a thing. [/QB]
Here you go:
quote:Originally posted by Matthew 16:28: Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Clearly the son of man has not yet come in his kingdom; equally clearly all who stood there listening to Jesus have in fact tasted death.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Clearly the son of man has not yet come in his kingdom; equally clearly all who stood there listening to Jesus have in fact tasted death.
Or, alternatively, one of the people there was granted immortality.
That's an interesting idea for a story. If you assume it was the last person alive, it's like the most valuable tontine of all time.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ron, I'm really annoyed at how you blew off my question as to the Lords of Kolob thing in the other thread. You throw it out there and then pretend I am being obtuse or ill-informed.
Jesus is the only being I call Lord. I can't put it any plainer than that.
You are right we mean something different as to Jesus being the Son of God. We believe he is literally the Son of God while you believe it is something other than literal. I can't say for every intent and purpose which is better, only that ours is more literal.
P.S. And I know of many cases where the most literal reading is not the one Mormons adhere to.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I was just thinking the same thing, Squick (both the person being granted near immortality and the possibilities of that as a story. And maybe working in the Wandering Jew into it as well).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You're not being very original here, I'm afraid; this is actually the source of the Wandering Jew legend. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That was interesting. I didn't know that there was a Wandering Jew connection in there. I always thought the Wandering Jew was supposed to be someone cursed because he mocked Jesus on the way to the crucifixion.
Noemon, Yeah, they'd be an interesting pair.
Set it in the present day and you can throw in a group that is trying to bring about the second coming of Christ by harvesting the genes of Jesus's family and doing human cloning.
Deliverance for the WJ from his cursed immortality (or maybe he's made accomodations with it by now), but Jesus's disciple has a troubling dilemna, assuming he (or she) is enjoying immortality.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
But then what have all these other people been raving about, claiming there is no difference?
Nobody is saying that. People have been saying, however, that your statements describing the difference are incorrect and misinformed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:People have been saying, however, that your statements describing the difference are incorrect and misinformed.
But Ron is the smartest, most informed of everyone here on a wide variety of issues! Just who do you think you are, anyway, mph, to question the great and powerful Ron/Oz?
--------------
Yeah, well, seeing as how Ron has repeatedly ignored direct questions insisting he back up some of his especially stupid statements, I'm not going to act like this is a real conversation, and instead just poke fun at him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That was interesting. I didn't know that there was a Wandering Jew connection in there. I always thought the Wandering Jew was supposed to be someone cursed because he mocked Jesus on the way to the crucifixion.
Well, I guess I should say, one of the sources. The Wiki lists your explanation as well.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MrSquicky, that is exactly what Mormons believe about John the beloved; that he was granted immortality. Of course, that brings up the whole Three Nephites thing who are also supposed to be granted immortality to wander the earth doing good.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I once met a missionary who claimed to have had met John the Beloved in a diner.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
There are a hundred Mormon urban legends like that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa said: "But things go more smoothly if controversial views of religion aren't shouted from the rooftops, and I've been trying to avoid that."
So you have been trying to drown me out, Lisa?
With truth, yes.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I hope you at least appreciate I am not among those
Yeesh. Who cares?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought I met John the Beloved in the mental Hospital, and St. Paul also. He kept calling me Charlotte.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sorry pooka, that's what the nurse told me your name was.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Pooka, since you have never heard of the Council of Gods, I guess I'll take some time to educate you and everyone else. Look at the last quote which is especially pertinent to the discussion at hand.
D&C 121:32
quote:According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this dworld was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal epresence and into his immortal frest.
quote:It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods"; that is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. No man can teach you more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council. I will simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers and ye doctors who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods, and they sat in grand council. The grand councilors sat in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds that were created at that time.
quote:Though Joseph’s views concerning a divine council of deities shocked many contemporary 19th century Christians, today, biblical scholars recognize that the council of Gods provides “a fundamental symbol for the Old Testament understanding of how the government of human society by the divine world is carried out”; Patrick D. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament,” Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 432.
In an important article published in 1975, biblical scholar N.L.A. Tidwell provided a definition of the biblical council genre as
“a narrative of events in the heavenly council on an occasion when the council is gathered to make some fateful decision concerning the affairs of men. In fact, wherever in the OT the activities of the council are described, or the deliberations of the council may by thought to be alluded to, some decision of great moment is always involved.” “Wa’omar (Zech. 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 94 (1975): 352.
In the ancient Near East, stories of the divine council typically begin with a crisis in which the head God calls together the gods of the council to resolve the dilemma. During the council, a series of proposals are offered. Finally, a “savior” steps forward, offering his services to the council. This savior then receives a commission to perform his redemptive role (this summary is based upon the pattern identified by Simon Parker, “Council,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 206).
This common Near Eastern pattern is witnessed, for example, in the Mesopotamian story of divine kingship known as Enuma Elish.
In the Babylonian myth, the head god of the pantheon calls together the gods in a council to resolve the dilemma created by the goddess Tiamat. Following a series of proposals, Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, receives a commission as savior. In the myth, Marduk agrees to perform the role of savior on the condition that his Father, Ea, the head god of the council, will grant Marduk all power and glory. The same pattern appears in the Assyrian myth Anzu, however, in this rendition, the god Ninurta agrees to serve as council savior while allowing his father to retain his position within the council.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Pooka, since you have never heard of the Council of Gods, I guess I'll take some time to educate you and everyone else.
Thank you, sir, for bequeathing thy knowledge upon us, but more for gracing us with the gift of time, that most precious of all coin!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent:
quote:It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods"; that is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth.
What's being referred to here is the first three words of the Bible. It says "Bereishit bara Elohim" ("In the beginning, God created"). The rabbis in the Talmud relate that when Ptolemy II wanted to have the Bible translated, he called 70 Sages together and put them in rooms separately, having each one translate the Torah. Each of the 70 men made certain changes in translation in places where they knew those who don't understand would make a mistake.
One of these was the first three words. They translated it so that it read "God created in the beginning". The reason they did that was because someone might otherwise have misunderstood and thought that the name Elohim was the plural word elohim, and that it was saying "In the beginning, He created gods", or that it said "Bereshit created God".
Joseph Smith clearly knew some Hebrew. Take Nauvoo, for example. But he also clearly learned it from an Ashkenazi Jew, as evidence by the vowels: baurau rather than bara. Nauvoo rather than navu.
Also, that verb doesn't mean "to bring forth" as such. It means creation ex nihilo, or something from nothing. Which as I understand it, goes against Mormon theology, but that's okay.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Lisa, I'm not arguing this with you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Who's arguing? I actually think it's cool that he knew some Hebrew.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Clearly the son of man has not yet come in his kingdom; equally clearly all who stood there listening to Jesus have in fact tasted death.
LOL I honestly could not think what scripture you would point out as I assumed it was general knowledge that the apostle John has yet to taste of death, and that he labors as an emissary of God until Jesus comes again.
I am certain their are Christians that disagree completely on whether John is still alive today.
edit: But you are right, either somebody is still alive or else Jesus thought the 2nd coming was alot sooner then it has been. Or else everyone seems to have missed it except JWs. I can understand why one would tend to think the 2nd option is more likely then the first.
Thanks for pointing that out KOM.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I assumed it was general knowledge that the apostle John has yet to taste of death
1) Why would you assume that? 2) That's actually a legitimate LDS belief!?!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks for your respect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh come on, you've got to admit that that is extremely out there. You've got to expect a little incredulity. I thought it was just another bit of the weird things that Occ likes to claim are LDS doctrine.
I mean, I'm still not sure. LDS believe that John the Apostle is, right now, walking the earth. This is correct? It's not like a myth or something like that. Actual person, still alive, leaving no historical footprint?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You know, if the beloved John wanted to really proselytize, all he'd have to do is proclaim himself as a 2000-year-old man, and prove it. I'm sure that would be fairly easy to do with modern science. All else failing, he could just live on for another hundred years without aging; that would certainly prove something. I at least would be mightily impressed by such a thing: Here would be real, tangible proof!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I also did not know that that was part of LDS doctrine and am somewhat baffled at the idea of it being "general knowledge."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I mean, I'm still not sure. LDS believe that John the Apostle is, right now, walking the earth. This is correct? It's not like a myth or something like that. Actual person, still alive, leaving no historical footprint?
Yes, they believe he's still around. It's doctrine, as far as I know.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Oh come on, you've got to admit that that is extremely out there. You've got to expect a little incredulity. I thought it was just another bit of the weird things that Occ likes to claim are LDS doctrine."
Have I ever claimed anything was LDS doctrine that was not? Certainly, I have argued for things that people said were doctrine that it wasn't. Where I have had an opinion I have stated that it is in fact my opinion.
quote: 1 And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. 2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. 3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people. 4 And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom. 5 I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done. 6 Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a aministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth. 7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come. 8 Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired. (Doctrine and Covenants 7)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
MrSquicky: Contrast your response with dkw's. Hopefully you can spot the difference.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:1 And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. 2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. 3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
* EDIT Looks like Occ beat me. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As BlackBlade said, "a different Bible".
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I know Mormons aren't the only ones to have at least speculated on this, but it is rare. The fact that the subject of an immortal person in relation to the scripture was brought up shows it is not outside of the realm of consideration.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It seems to have been a speculation even at the time that the gospel of John was written:
quote: So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” --John 21:23
I just didn't know that any church had accepted it as doctrine. The second half of the verse argues against it for those who don't also accept the other LDS scriptures.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, the interpretation I have heard for the second part is that Jesus is simply saying its none of your business.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
John the Apostle couldn't be walking the earth today. Doesn't he have to remain in that hidden cave guarding the Holy Grail?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jon Boy, What can I say. I was really, really, really surprised. And you know, looking at my response, I don't think you've really got much call to be jumping all over me. I expressed a great deal of surprise, which is what I felt. I did not belittle your or your beliefs at all.
It is a far enough out there belief that my first thought was that this was a hoax. It appears that it is not. I'm fine with that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If I understand this correctly, not only is John the Apostle still alive today, but he is immortal! Why isn't he doing the super-hero act? In thousands of years of time, he could have learned every sort of beneficial, life-saving knowledge known to man, and could be the best firefighter/field medic/policeman/rescue worker in the history of the world!
He could run around mine fields setting off all the mines so no innocent children die. He could walk through the middle of armed conflicts, unharmed by bullets or explosions, brokering peace between the conflicting sides. He could show us all that his faith is capable of miracles and his God is real.
If he's supposed to be doing the Good Work of Jesus and bringing souls to God, he's really slacking off.
Maybe he's using up all his accumulated vacation time.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
And MightyCow is the reason that Mormons are generally closed mouthed about what they believe (I am on the edge if his comments should be whistled). As someone said on another thread, there are at least three or four levels of Mormon doctrine and theory to understand before you "questions" can be answered. The bottom line, however, is that his mission is different than changing the world and forcing everyone to "see the light."
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Lurking: here is an interesting essay by OSC Himself on polytheism & mormons
fascinating thread. Thanks to all who have contributed.
lj
ps: MC: If you wiki Revelations and John (in one of them, I don't recall which), the early story was that the Roman emperor tried to kill John by dropping him in boiling oil, and he emerged unhurt. He then banished John to Patmos (wherein he wrote Revelation) because he couldn't kill him. For what it is worth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You've got to be kidding me. The myth here is that John of Patmos is the same John as John the Apostle? *laugh*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:He could run around mine fields setting off all the mines so no innocent children die. He could walk through the middle of armed conflicts, unharmed by bullets or explosions, brokering peace between the conflicting sides.
Well, we don't know that his ability to heal is any greater than anyone else's. He could basically just be a sentient but inert lump of flesh that stubbornly refuses to rot at this point, if he's sustained enough injuries. Kind of like in that one Ursula K. LeGuin short story.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr S: I did not take offense are your incredulity. While I was writing my response it occurred to me that somebody using only the New Testament could certainly doubt that John literally has not died, and I extrapolated that it was likely many Christians do not believe that.
You should realize that even if John never died, that does not necessarily mean he has always been on the earth since Jesus' ascension, ala "Highlander" style. He could still spend a significant amount of time in God's presence, heaven, or who knows where else. I think it's pretty likely he spends alot of time on earth doing good, even if it is not necessarily proselyting.
John wouldn't be the first to have questionably died. Moses and Elijah both ended their sojourns on earth under interesting circumstances.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Occasional: Sorry if you felt my post was insulting. It was a little tongue in cheek, but at the same time it's kind of a serious question. If I just don't understand it, I can accept that.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: And MightyCow is the reason that Mormons are generally closed mouthed about what they believe (I am on the edge if his comments should be whistled).
Whistled for what? I'm sure MightyCow is no more biased against Mormon theories than any other religious theories as well. There no evidence for the existence of an immortal human being (the very concept requires violating laws of the universe). It's a theory on the same level as Noah's Ark and literal creation. MightyCow made no personal attacks and is not responsible if you find criticism of your beliefs offensive. There is nothing wrong with exposing problems with theories (not that there is much to expose about a theory whose basic premise is impossible).
EDIT: Made slightly less abrasive
[ December 10, 2007, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
While I agree with your call as to whistling, I don't know about whether its on the "same level" as Noah's Ark and literal creation.
I think those two are quite a bit more ridiculous than just one guy being immortal, assuming he's of the "oh, I can live forever assuming nobody really hurts me" variety rather than the "oh, I can survive anything" variety.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Threads, Robert Heinlein once said that when a man (sic) of science says something is possible, he is likely right; when he says something is impossible he is nearly always wrong.
Simply saying something is impossible doesn't make it so. If you google transhumanism, you will find some very serious discussions about extending human life almost indefinitely.
The problem is that you have unexamined premises such as materialism which limits what you will allow to be true. Others simply aren't bound by that and can discuss John being alive today.
Tom, I thought you used to be LDS? How could you not know that LDS doctrine is that John on Patmos is the Beloved? (There are some indications that they are not since, I am told, the style of Greek in Revelation is distinct from that in the gospel or the general epistles, but LDS doctrine is that they are one and the same.)
wikipedia interesting note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle "According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics) John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it."
lj
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
They all require violations of the known natural laws, but you're right in the sense that literal creation and Noah's Ark have been debunked by existing evidence.
EDIT: In response to Mucus
[ December 10, 2007, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Tom, I thought you used to be LDS?
You were mistaken.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Out of curiosity, which natural laws does an immortal guy violate given the conditions that I specified above?
Anyways, the reason I don't say they're on the same level is that:
Noah's ark: Violates geological evidence about various natural features, biological evidence about how weird all DNA would look if a normal population was squished to two individuals and then back out again, geographic distribution of animals, not to mention archaeological evidence or heck, even historical evidence from civilizations that have records from relatively close to that time
Literal creation: same problems as the first half of Noah's Ark and adds astronomical issues about the age of the universe and the solar system
Immortal guy: Bizarro mutation that allows guy's cells to live forever and have much better repair mechanisms on the level of the individual cell
So intuitively, if I were to arrange them in order of absurdity I would have to go with:
immortal guy << literal creation < Noah's Ark
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Threads, Robert Heinlein once said that when a man (sic) of science says something is possible, he is likely right; when he says something is impossible he is nearly always wrong.
Given the context of his quote, I think Heinlein would make an exception for ideas that have already been debunked.
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Simply saying something is impossible doesn't make it so. If you google transhumanism, you will find some very serious discussions about extending human life almost indefinitely.
Yes, but I was talking about the possibility of a man living from 2000 years ago to present without the use of modern technology. That is clearly not possible given what we know about the universe.
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: The problem is that you have unexamined premises such as materialism which limits what you will allow to be true. Others simply aren't bound by that and can discuss John being alive today.
I hear this come up a lot and it never makes much sense to me. To rationally believe in the existence of something you have to have evidence for it. Why would you believe that John is alive today if you don't have any evidence? The only answer I can think of is faith.
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: wikipedia interesting note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle "According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics) John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it."
Is that supposed to be evidence?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Out of curiosity, which natural laws does an immortal guy violate given the conditions that I specified above?
The conditions for immortal that you gave don't fit the true definition. If John the Apostle can be killed then he is not immortal. I don't think the dictionary has any flexibility in this regard.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Yes, but I was talking about the possibility of a man living from 2000 years ago to present without the use of modern technology. That is clearly not possible given what we know about the universe.
Another difference in what we're considering. I figure there is a tiny possibility that advanced aliens might have gone with technology we can conceive of today and made one guy immortal just to mess with him for kicks.
The amount of technology required to wipe out practically everyone on Earth, restart everyone from two organisms or so, and fix all the evidence so it all looks consistent is at least a "level" of magnitude more than the first scenario, if not impossible.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MightyCow, I will return the favor and say if it was not intended to be offensive and just be humorous then I won't worry about the whole whistle thing. From my perspective there are too many people who explain my faith exactly like you, only for no other reason than to mock.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Yes, but I was talking about the possibility of a man living from 2000 years ago to present without the use of modern technology. That is clearly not possible given what we know about the universe.
Another difference in what we're considering. I figure there is a tiny possibility that advanced aliens might have gone with technology we can conceive of today and made one guy immortal just to mess with him for kicks.
Okay fine. You win. I'll have to cop out by saying that nothing in the theory about John the Apostle says anything about aliens. I guess I have to say that the most popular theory about John's immortality is not possible. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Occasional: While I'm an atheist, I really do wish that I could find some evidence for supernatural or divine existence which could convince me that I'm wrong.
So when I ask a question like that, it isn't to mock, but with sincere chagrin that if such a man exists, which would be a fantastic event I would love to see, that it is not something to which I am privy. I really DO wish that if John the Apostle is still around, he'd make a little noise about it so that I could see.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Occasional: I, on the other hand, am just a grouchy fart (according to myself not you). Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So the phrase "council of the gods" appears. What do you think that means? How many gods? and why does it matter to me?
I do believe John the Beloved tarried, as they say, but I don't really see how it directly affects my salvation other than as an illustration that God's promises are kept, and I certainly don't think it means John is a god.
We are the children of God, but we are not even born yet, as the analogy to earth life goes.
Also, I don't believe there are all these levels of Mormon doctrine. People can develop in one area or another, one direction or another, but everyone can exercise their privilege of revelation according to their own faith and requirements.
I suppose it would be fair to grant that I'm going with a particular definition of "god" that perhaps Joseph Smith was not: someone who I should worship. If anyone is arguing that Smith meant more than the three known beings of the Godhead, what definition was he using?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't think John needs to be proven by scientific means. It is a miracle, which by definition cannot be explained by natural means. In order to disprove it, you would have to show that every single man on the planet hasn't lived for 2000 years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Speaking for myself, something on the order of an immortal apostle would meet my criteria for something that, if I became convinced of its reality, would persuade me to join a given religion.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Pooka, the council of gods has little to do with worship-worthiness. Only the Father is the source of worship-worthiness; the Son and Holy Ghost are only worthy of worship due to the fact that they share an indwelling relationship of love with the Father. Visit NewCoolThang.com if you really want to understand the answers to the questions you are asking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kent, you're such an Ostler fanboy. Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Mucus, you are creative. Aliens, maybe?
The thread was about polytheism, hence a strictly materialistic assumption is somewhat out of place. It would seem to be begging the question, since in a discussion of theology, to assume materialism is to assume that which has not been agreed upon. The argument for materialism is, of course, recursive and not capable of being proven.
Same with the Noah question. There are certainly ancient stories of widespread devastating floods, which could form the nucleus of the Noah story. The Ba'hai have an interpretation that it is a spiritual allegory based on real people, and OSC has written a Pastwatch story about a reinterpretation of Noah. To say there was no Noah because our current genome wouldn't reveal it seems like a foolish oversimplification. A more cautious approach is to see if there is some element of truth in ancient stories, such as the American Indian stories of a widespread, devastating flood. Could there have been a period of flooding, both in the near east and in north america, giving rise to the flood stories? Or are these discrete floods? There is certainly a world-wide tradition to explain, and retreating to "it couldn't happen" is disrespectful of the traditions.
So there are various witnesses to John continuing to live. He is not viewed as immortal but rather in a different state between immortality and mortality. That is a religious tradition or myth, and as such should be respected as its own story.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I don't think John needs to be proven by scientific means. It is a miracle, which by definition cannot be explained by natural means. In order to disprove it, you would have to show that every single man on the planet hasn't lived for 2000 years.
A miracle might not be able to be explained by natural means, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be shown.
If we can find a 2,000 year old person, we wouldn't necessarily be able to explain scientifically HOW he is able to live so long and be impervious to boiling oil, but we could certainly test his age and dunk him in boiling oil to verify those claims.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Speaking for myself, something on the order of an immortal apostle would meet my criteria for something that, if I became convinced of its reality, would persuade me to join a given religion.
You'd be surprised how an immortal apostle would do little for you when a religion's requirements become too difficult to perform or to understand.
Although maybe John reads these forums and is en route to your house. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Do you think that people who don't follow your religion have an easier time? It seems to me, it could be argued that those who don't believe in a religion, but still live a meaningful, virtuous life might already be familiar with the sort of difficulty that you are talking about and have been able to handle it just fine.
For myself, an immortal apostle would make me challenge much of what I thought and make me more receptive to that particular religion, but, ultimately, it's a demonstration of power, not righteousness. An evil deity could do it just as well as a good one. To be worthy, I think that decision is one that should be made without preference to power.
Too many people in this world already worship evil gods.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I guess I have to say that the most popular theory about John's immortality is not possible.
Sure, I can get behind that...with only small boring caveats
lynn johnson:
Short answer: I think you're reading a lot more into my answer than actually was there. I was just roughly assessing the probability of different events as Threads described them, a literal creation story, an actual literal Noah's Ark, and a immortal apostle with no real relationship to the OP. If you want to start comparing the likelihood of an partially allegorical Ark, an allegorical creation story, and an allegorical immortal story, all power to you. Its just that its outside of the scope of my post.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:BB, Do you think that people who don't follow your religion have an easier time? It seems to me, it could be argued that those who don't believe in a religion, but still live a meaningful, virtuous life might already be familiar with the sort of difficulty that you are talking about and have been able to handle it just fine.
I'm not sure what your point is Squicky. Why should an unbeliever be especially prepared to submit their will into the hands of another being who often communicates and commands in a manner far different then what most people are used to?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You were talking about how your religion's commands would become too difficult to perform. It sounds to me like you are claiming following your religion is the harder path.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why do you think the cigarette companies are still in business?
Just because we know something is bad for us-- even from an empirical, scientific point of view-- does not mean that we change our behavior to exterminate that bad thing.
I think that's what BB is getting at.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:BB, Do you think that people who don't follow your religion have an easier time? It seems to me, it could be argued that those who don't believe in a religion, but still live a meaningful, virtuous life might already be familiar with the sort of difficulty that you are talking about and have been able to handle it just fine.
I'm not sure what your point is Squicky. Why should an unbeliever be especially prepared to submit their will into the hands of another being who often communicates and commands in a manner far different then what most people are used to?
And you're right. The immortal Jew, or any sort of miracle, wouldn't necessarily push me into a religion. Because it's not one questions. It's two.
Number one, do I believe in a given deity? Number two, will I worship that deity?
Miracles can only, potentially, answer question one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, those questions are in the wrong order.
As I read this thread I am intrigued by the balance/conflict/intersection of two ways of thinking about religion (for people of faith). One is the "human beings had the truth once and we need to preserve/reinstate that truth" idea. The other (which is where I tend to fall is the "as we learn more and build on the foundations of those who came before, we come closer to the truth than in the past" idea.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think the idea is that when the Savior was here, he brought the truth with him. That's the ideal that was left.
So, your statement should rather read: "Jesus Christ gave human beings the truth once and we need to preserve/reinstate that truth." in order to be an accurate summary.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me, those questions are in the wrong order.
Well, I wasn't really ordering them. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, That seems like a pretty presumptious judgement to make about a specific person, like BB did to Tom. It's also clearly false when talking about all people, rather than many people.
My point is that a virtuous atheist or similar, having already developed a commitment to internal virtue, it seems like they'd have a relatively easy time if they start following an external deity that also wants them to be virtuous.
I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So, your statement should rather read: "Jesus Christ gave human beings the truth once and we need to preserve/reinstate that truth." in order to be an accurate summary.
In that case, would things that Jesus didn't talk about/condemn not be part of the truth?
That is, if his message encompassed perfect truth, then clearly anything outside it would have to be not the truth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't commenting so much on the source of the truth, but human understanding of it.
Javert, I was just noting that, for me, the nature of God is a more fundamental question than the existence of God.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think part of the miscommunication here is a complete role reversal.
(Some, possibly BB) religious people may believe that it is harder to follow the dictates of their religion and that it would be "easier" to fall into disbelief, to give into sin, or whatever they may call it.
On the other hand, (possibly Squickly) some non-religious people (and many times I can sympathise with this) sometimes feel that it is easier to give up your independence and submit to an authority or movement, whether their beliefs are arbitrary or not. That it is remarkably tempting to give into the absolute knowledge about life that a religion/cult can give you. In fact, I seem to recall that certain cults have an explicit procedure of love bombing and then revealing arbitrary knowledge that must be explicitly accepted in an initiation to continue.
In an aside, it is my theory that less drastic forms of this principle are at work in secular places like the Cultural Revolution and Mao's Red Book or non-secular places like the greater propensity for first generation Chinese immigrants to Canada, now free of the CPP, to join religion at much greater levels than the background CBC (or second generation) population, that many people *want* to be lead, that nearly limitless freedom is literally something to be feared to them.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Or maybe they've met a number of atheists who lack the internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
The mistake may be to blame the philosophy that "freed" them from the standard of morality rather than chalk it up to immaturity, but it isn't necessary to, you know, slander the theists in order for to account for the assumption.
quote:that many people *want* to be lead, that nearly limitless freedom is literally something to be feared to them.
Alternately, they feel like they've been deprived of spiritual knowledge and the Spirit and are absolutely longing for a connection with their Heavenly Father.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, I was just noting that, for me, the nature of God is a more fundamental question than the existence of God.
I can understand that, but for me the question of god never comes up. I just look for the nature of what it is to be good (for me, anyway). So when the question of god does come up, I look for the existence first.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Alternately, they feel like they've been deprived of spiritual knowledge and the Spirit and are absolutely longing for a connection with their Heavenly Father.
That doesn't explain a delta in propensity to join authoritarian religion between first and second generation immigrants. If it was simply a matter of being spiritually disconnected then the rate should be the same between the two generations. There clearly is a mechanism in effect here that has to be explained.
The traditional wisdom is that these people's religions were repressed in China and that they are now free to explore it here. However, in the second generation people tend to absorb more of the secular Canadian culture.
My alternative theory is that despite leaving China, many people like the certainty of thought that the CPP gave them and quickly latch onto a replacement. The second generation doesn't inherit or "miss" this certainty and thus tend back toward to background levels.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Or maybe they've met a number of atheists who lack the internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
I have no idea why that would be relevant. If you are talking about how all people are (or "human nature" as people seem to like to talk about), then experiences with some people aren't really enough to say how all people are.
quote:The mistake may be to blame the philosophy that "freed" them from the standard of morality rather than chalk it up to immaturity, but it isn't necessary to, you know, slander the theists in order for to account for the assumption.
This part is also not what I'm talking about. People are not talking abuot the philosophy doing things, but rather the lack of a belief. Oftentimes, this is termed as how they think they themselves would behave if they didn't believe in God.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You are failing to account for their morality and instead are imagining what they would be without the morality they've attached themselves in order to say they have no morality of their own.
Both you and Black Blade are judging the other side by yourself and failing to account for the other's situation and hence neither are saying anything relevant. There's no light here.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Tom, I think St. John lays low because he's probably tired of people stabbing him all the time to prove he's immortal. But that's just a guess. In general, I'd say that in order for him to have that wish in the first place, he must have different ideas of what's important from me. Not in a better or worse way, of course.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That seems like a pretty presumptious judgement to make about a specific person, like BB did to Tom. It's also clearly false when talking about all people, rather than many people.
I don't think that BB was actually asserting that Tom, personally, would have a problem with following God, should God meet Tom's criteria.
I also don't think that BB was talking about "all people." I think these are conclusions you, Squicky, have drawn about BB's post, and I don't see much support for them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You are failing to account for their morality and instead are imagining what they would be without the morality they've attached themselves in order to say they have no morality of their own.
Err...no, I'm taking what they themselves are saying, although I'm not completely taking it at face value. I don't actually think that most of them, if they lost their faith in God, would really go out and do the terrible things that they say they will do or that they say all people without faith in God will do.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:My point is that a virtuous atheist or similar, having already developed a commitment to internal virtue, it seems like they'd have a relatively easy time if they start following an external deity that also wants them to be virtuous.
It depends on what you mean by virtue. To go back to my analogy: even when confronted by empirical evidence that smoking is bad-- and even deadly-- for you, many people continue to smoke.
It'd be much more difficult (I think) to convince people to stop smoking WITHOUT empirical evidence.
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
I don't think that you are qualified to make this kind of character judgment. I don't think anyone is capable of making this kind of character judgment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have no idea why that would be relevant. If you are talking about how all people are (or "human nature" as people seem to like to talk about), then experiences with some people aren't really enough to say how all people are.
Sufficient, no. But hardly irrelevant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think you are quaified to make that judgement about my ability to make that judgement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Sufficient, no. But hardly irrelevant.
How so?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Really? You have the ability to read minds and judge the heart and souls of complete strangers?
Have you contacted Professor X yet?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, Could I request that you at least make the attempt to be civil?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You do not have the ability to read the minds or judge the hearts of anyone who isn't you. Are you claiming to be able to do so?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't think you are quaified to make that judgement about my ability to make that judgement.
You're thinking too small-- I'm not only qualified to make this judgment about you, but about EVERYONE.
Let's at least get the scale of my hubris right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: To go back to my analogy: even when confronted by empirical evidence that smoking is bad-- and even deadly-- for you, many people continue to smoke.
It'd be much more difficult (I think) to convince people to stop smoking WITHOUT empirical evidence.
Unless they had other reasons not to smoke or weren't inclined to smoke in the first place or thought it smelled bad or was too expensive...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You do not have the ability to read the minds or judge the hearts of anyone who isn't you. Are you claiming to be able to do so?
No, of course I'm not.
edit: But again, you are responding to things that no one has said.
I'm going to ask you again to have the respect to keep your tone civil and try to address what I've actually said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
I did say "STOP smoking."
But I see your point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: To go back to my analogy: even when confronted by empirical evidence that smoking is bad-- and even deadly-- for you, many people continue to smoke.
It'd be much more difficult (I think) to convince people to stop smoking WITHOUT empirical evidence.
Unless they had other reasons not to smoke or weren't inclined to smoke in the first place or thought it smelled bad or was too expensive...
Yes, it's pretty tough to get people to stop smoking if they never start.
But even with other motivations to stop smoking, I think that the empirical evidence still helps motivate them to want to stop even more.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Squicky, you said:
quote: I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
This judgment requires intimate knowledge of someone's thoughts and character, beyond what I believe human beings are normally capable of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By all means, let's keep our tones civil.
Perhaps we could start but not calling other people - or important aspects of other people - immature.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I knew some people who said that all the hoopla about smoking being bad for you was basically a government conspiracy. I mean, they didn't use the word conspiracy, but they basically saw it as a bunch of lies and felt that if smoking were so deadly, wouldn't they be dead already? They weren't really able to articulate what the no-smoking-niks had to gain from their interference.
I'm just saying there are apparently people willing to disbelieve commonly held "facts" on a variety of subjects, that not everyone misbehaves in a baldly defiant way.
Of course, I'm not sure which side of the argument this whole smoking analogy is supposed to fall.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This judgment requires intimate knowledge of someone's thoughts and character
I don't believe that it does.
quote:Perhaps we could start but not calling other people - or important aspects of other people - immature.
I am not entirely certain what this has to do with civility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am not entirely certain what this has to do with civility.
I'm not surprised.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you explain?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe look back a page at your reaction to the idea of John tarrying in the flesh.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why should Dag have to explain? Can't you read his mind?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Squicky, you said:
quote: I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
This judgment requires intimate knowledge of someone's thoughts and character, beyond what I believe human beings are normally capable of.
I've met some of these same sort of people. They say thing like "If I didn't believe in God, what would keep me from just killing the people I don't like or stealing whatever I wanted?"
I don't think it's too far out there to postulate an "immature morality" to that sentiment, though my personal belief is that morality is a more universal aspect of our culture for which we may falsely credit god, personal enlightenment, or some other force.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If you are trying to get me to see things differently and/or change my behavior, by all means do so, but please provide some sort of explanation or elaboration.
Without this, it looks to me like all you are interested in is taking shots, which is clearly neither respectful nor productive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Could you explain?
I think it's rude of you to jump to and publicly state the conclusion about the maturity of others' morality in the way you did.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Can I ask you to at least attempt to keep a civil tone?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've met some of those people, too, MattP.
I don't think they're capable of making that judgment any more than I believe Squicky is capable of making his.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think it's rude of you to jump to and publicly state the conclusion about the maturity of others' morality in the way you did.
Because...?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I see you already apologized for that, Squicky. Sorry to bring it up again.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think it's rude of you to jump to and publicly state the conclusion about the maturity of others' morality in the way you did.
Because...?
Squicky, you stated that you were "not entirely certain what this has to do with civility." What it had to do with civility was that I found the behavior I commented on to be rude.
Now you're asking an entirely different question - why do I think it rude.
It's rude because you're stating negative opinions about others based on your guesses of their motivations and and maturity level. I find that to be rude, just as it would be rude if I were to speculate that you've been posting in such a hostile manner for the last two days because you haven't gotten laid, or got a parking ticket, or had a stomach ache.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Can I ask you to at least attempt to keep a civil tone?
No.
Well, I mean, you're capable of it. I just don't think I'm inclined to comply. Should you make such a request. Which you haven't. Yet.
I've got too much irony in my system right now.
Your attitude-- specifically, that you can make the character judgment that complete strangers are "morally immature" and "lack internal commitment" -- is much more harmful to this community than my foolishness.
In an effort to warn off your destructive attitudes, and to alert this community that you are an individual who cannot be trusted to dialog from an honest, rational, level position, I feel I need to take a strong opposition to your comments.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm going to make an observation here. The line that seems to have started the argument is this:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Note the qualifiers here, "many", "these". I'm guessing the reason some are feeling particularly upset is that some ignored these qualifiers and personalized this comment about a group in general to themselves, as if they feel a comment on the group in general is automatically a comment about themselves.
Here is an example
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I find that to be rude, just as it would be rude if I were to speculate that you've been posting in such a hostile manner for the last two days because you haven't gotten laid, or got a parking ticket, or had a stomach ache.
Note that the comparison is made to Squickly individually when the real parallel would be if Dagonee speculated that many atheists were angry because they collectively got more parking tickets or stomach aches.
I think tempers could be cooled a bit if people kept in mind that a comment about a group in general is not automatically a judgement about all members in that group.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't see why Squicky is getting so beat-up on here. If someone really *would* do horrible things if they lost their belief in God, labeling that an immature morality doesn't strike me as rude. I think the only error is in Squicky taking such claims at face value.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It's rude because you're stating negative opinions about others based on your guesses of their motivations and and maturity level. I find that to be rude, just as it would be rude if I were to speculate that you've been posting in such a hostile manner for the last two days because you haven't gotten laid, or got a parking ticket, or had a stomach ache.
Except you would be making negative statements about me, at me, with no sort of support.
I'm making statements about a certain group of people, not party to this discussion, and laying the case why I think so.
The first is a rude, personal attack. You would be being rude to me.
The second is a discussion. Yes, it does attribute some negative characteristics to a group of people. Discussions often do. Who, exactly, was I rude or uncivil to here?
BB attributed negative characteristics to Tom specifically and a group of people and you didn't bat an eye.
If you want to have a discussion about this, you are certainly free to challenge what I said. Scott already has by saying that I have to be a mind reader to be able to make that judgement. I disagreed and, were he looking to discuss the reason for my disagreement, we could talk about why I did.
To me, that's legitimate and it could be productive. What I see people doing, however, is calling names and throwing accusations around to stop or discredit the discussion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mucus:
I don't think that's a rational conclusion based on the responses to Squicky's post.
To be specific-- I noted Squicky's qualifiers. It makes no difference-- I do not believe that he (or anyone) is capable of making the judgments he claims to be able to make.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think tempers could be cooled a bit if people kept in mind that a comment about a group in general is not automatically a judgement about all members in that group.
Your assumption that we do not have that in mind is unwarranted (and, in my case at least, wrong).
I would find your restatement of my hypothetical as a "real parallel" to be equally rude.
quote: If someone really *would* do horrible things if they lost their belief in God, labeling that an immature morality doesn't strike me as rude.
This is a more specific version of Squick's original statement:
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do horrible things if they lost their belief in God.
Moreover, Squicky's conclusion patently ignores a host of alternative explanations for that conclusion.
Finally, Squicky has been using the word "maturity" as a club for years here on Hatrack to belittle people. Always in groups, of course, and leaving room to interpret his statements as being about only a subset of people.
It's why I laugh almost every time he calls OSC out for doing the same thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Your attitude-- specifically, that you can make the character judgment that complete strangers are "morally immature" and "lack internal commitment" -- is much more harmful to this community than my foolishness.
In an effort to warn off your destructive attitudes, and to alert this community that you are an individual who cannot be trusted to dialog from an honest, rational, level position, I feel I need to take a strong opposition to your comments.
I not entirely sure how my attitude could be considered harmful to the community at all. What harm, exactly, would it be causing?
Also, I have no problem with strong opposition. I never have. I do have a problem with disrespectful namecalling, which is what you are doing. If that is what you equate with strong opposition, I think you may have yoru definitions confused.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I see people doing, however, is calling names and throwing accusations around to stop or discredit the discussion.
Then you're a BLIND mind-reader.
What's occurring is that people are refusing to discuss a topic with you because you claim to have an impossible level of personal knowledge about people who oppose your point of view.
It's not any more valid when you do it than when Mitt Romney does it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do not believe that he (or anyone) is capable of making the judgments he claims to be able to make.
Scott, It should be noted that the reason you gave for why no one be capable of making this judgement, that they'd need to be the mindreader, is not what I'm relying my judgement on, as I've already noted.
Unless you, yourself, are claiming to be a mind reader, I don't see how you can reasonably conclude that that is what I'm basing this on.
Or, as I said on the prior page, I don't believe that you are qualified to judgement if I am qualified to make this judgement.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:BB attributed negative characteristics to Tom specifically and a group of people and you didn't bat an eye.
I do not think this is a rational conclusion about their exchange.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"equally rude" You get that one for free.
Yeah, you're pissed. We get that. I'm just trying to calm things down here.
All I'm saying is that there seems to be an overreaction and unwarranted anger far beyond what is deserved and giving possible reasons. If you feel like lashing out at the messenger, I can't really help that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" really such a terrible indicator of moral immaturity?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Except you would be making negative statements about me, at me, with no sort of support.
I'm making statements about a certain group of people, not party to this discussion, and laying the case why I think so.
Why is "not party to this discussion" relevant to whether you are being rude?
quote:The second is a discussion. Yes, it does attribute some negative characteristics to a group of people. Discussions often do. Who, exactly, was I rude or uncivil to here?
Again, adding a qualifier - that rudeness can only be done to a specific person who happens to post in this thread - that is unwarranted.
quote:BB attributed negative characteristics to Tom specifically and a group of people and you didn't bat an eye.
No, he didn't. He said "You'd be surprised how an immortal apostle would do little for you when a religion's requirements become too difficult to perform or to understand."
You then modified this to "liv[ing] a meaningful, virtuous life" and claimed that BB was saying Tom wouldn't be familiar with the difficulties involved in living such a life.
Your modification is accurate only if fulfilling a religion's requirements is limited to living a meaningful, virtuous life. For most religions, living such a life can be viewed as being a subset of fulfilling their requirements. Alternatively, living a meaningful, virtuous life in the context of a religion can be viewed as having additional requirements not typically associated with a non-religious view of living such a life.
For example, to fulfill the requirements of catholicism typically entails going to weekly mass, receiving the sacraments, praying, fasting, and observing a host of other requirements that are not part of living a meaningful, virtuous life outside the Catholic context.
BB's statement presupposed difficulty in performing or understanding a religion's requirements. It didn't presuppose difficulty in living a meaningful, virtuous life.
quote:To me, that's legitimate and it could be productive. What I see people doing, however, is calling names and throwing accusations around to stop or discredit the discussion.
Which is how I view your string of responses to (and about) BB on this topic.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Have these people ever wistfully recounted the things they would do if not for that pesky God telling them not to? Do they tell you you're so lucky? If so, then I would say you're assessment is correct. If not, I'd say they might have commented without really thinking things through.
P.S. This reminds me of "Reign on me" where they dentist's wife suggests that the dentist envies the drummer's freedom (the drummer is widowered).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do horrible things if they lost their belief in God.
Ok, they would only do moderately bad things. Or maybe they'd just make bad jokes and drive slow in the carpool lane. I still don't think that labeling people who "think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly" as morally immature is rude. I happen to disagree with the assessment. But I don't see why it's so obviously and offensively rude.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:For example, to fulfill the requirements of catholicism typically entails going to weekly mass, receiving the sacraments, praying, fasting, and observing a host of other requirements that are not part of living a meaningful, virtuous life outside the Catholic context.
Is that not going to be seen as meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic?
I'm having problems seeing the justification for a religion having requirements that aren't considered by them to be meaningful and virtuous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" really such a terrible indicator of moral immaturity?
It's the assigning of that description that is rude, regardless of whether you assigned it to a group of unnamed people who don't happen to be posting here.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I picked on kat's mind-reading thing specifically to to show my contempt for your position.
I don't think you (or anyone) is capable of evaluating anyone's character to the depth that you're claiming.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:For example, to fulfill the requirements of catholicism typically entails going to weekly mass, receiving the sacraments, praying, fasting, and observing a host of other requirements that are not part of living a meaningful, virtuous life outside the Catholic context.
Is that not going to be seen as meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic?
I'm having problems seeing the justification for a religion having requirements that aren't considered by them to be meaningful and virtuous.
Of course it is going to be meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic. I said as much in my post in the paragraph above.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It's the assigning of that description that is rude,
No, they assigned that description to themselves.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
What if I said that many people only chose to be atheists so that they can feel superior to and more enlightened than the silly Christians.
ETA: that's not actually what I'm saying :-p I don't know enough to make that judgement
I'm only making a generalized statment about "a certain group of people, not party to this discussion", do you find that statement offensive?
Having said that, I agree with Dagonee's interpretation of BB's statement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Not that this is the entirety of my position, but you don't think people can say the people who, by their own admission, are "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" are morally immature?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, they assigned that description to themselves.
No, they haven't, at least not in your original statement. You've interpreted a their statement to mean that.
quote:Ok, they would only do moderately bad things. Or maybe they'd just make bad jokes and drive slow in the carpool lane. I still don't think that labeling people who "think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly" as morally immature is rude. I happen to disagree with the assessment. But I don't see why it's so obviously and offensively rude.
Fine. Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do <whatever adjective you want> things if they lost their belief in God.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: What if I said that many people only chose to be atheists so that they can feel superior to and more enlightened than the silly Christians.
ETA: that's not actually what I'm saying :-p I don't know enough to make that judgement
I'm only making a generalized statment about "a certain group of people, not party to this discussion", do you find that statement offensive?
Nope, not offensive.
I think it is wrong because it definitely overstates the problem. However, I have no doubt that there are *some* genuine anti-theist atheists that become atheist for that reason, especially if they convert directly from Christianity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Of course it is going to be meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic. I said as much in my post in the paragraph above.
Then I'm not understanding what your problem is here.
Either there is more to following a religion while a member of that religion than living a virtuous and meaningful life (as seen by that religion) or there isn't.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Fine. Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do <whatever adjective you want> things if they lost their belief in God.
Isn't that implicit in the statement that "people without an external moral judge would behave badly"?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
I'd say there is more to following a religion than living a virtuous and meaningful life. (virtuous in this sense meaning abstaining from hurting other people, although the definition you choose for the word really determines your answer)
There's praising your deity of choice, studying the teachings of said religion, and probably most important of all, preparing your soul for the next life.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Of course it is going to be meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic. I said as much in my post in the paragraph above.
Then I'm not understanding what your problem is here.
Either there is more to following a religion while a member of that religion than living a virtuous and meaningful life (as seen by that religion) or there isn't.
Read this again where I present two alternative ways to view the phenomenon:
quote:For most religions, living such a life can be viewed as being a subset of fulfilling their requirements. Alternatively, living a meaningful, virtuous life in the context of a religion can be viewed as having additional requirements not typically associated with a non-religious view of living such a life.
Under one of looking at "living a virtuous and meaningful life" there are religious requirements in addition to living that way. Under ANOTHER way of looking at "living a virtuous and meaningful life" there are not such additional religious requirements.
Regardless of which way one chooses to look at it, there are religious requirements in addition to "living a virtuous and meaningful life" as defined in a non-religious sense.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No, they haven't, at least not in your original statement. You've interpreted a their statement to mean that.
I'm not entirely sure why what is in my initial statement is the only thing that it important here. I provided that in a subsequent clarification. How do you justify ignoring it?
Also, from my intial statement, they said that all people without an external moral judge would behave very badly. If by interpreting that, you mean that I included them in the set of "all people", I guess that you could say I interpreted that. Are you saying that they can't, by default, be assumed to be in the set of all people?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Regardless of which way one chooses to look at it, there are religious requirements in addition to "living a virtuous and meaningful life" as defined in a non-religious sense.
Yes, but when we are taling about someone who sincerely converted to the religion, we wouldn't be talking about from a non-religious sense, would we?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There's praising your deity of choice, studying the teachings of said religion, and probably most important of all, preparing your soul for the next life.
Are you saying that this isn't virtuous and meaningful in the eyes of true converts to that religion?
edit: Because my contention is that the extra parts of the religious will come to be seen as virtuous and meaningful to the true convert.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
You did notice I defined virtue, and pointed out that your definition would define the answer?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Right, and I'm asking if true converts to a religion would use a definition of meaningful and virtuous that excluded the things that you listed?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Depends on your definition of true convert. I accept and believe most of the Catholic faith, but I don't think abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent is a particularly virtuous practice.
ETA: I still do try to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent, out of respect for the traditions and symbolism of the Church, but I don't think of it as being virtuous.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's also not a requirement to being Catholic.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Some people would argue that it is :-p
Here's a more personal and maybe more helpful example: I haven't taken the eucharist in months because I'm running into theological issues with the Church's teachings on that subject. However, I still consider myself to be Catholic, and I hope to eventually be able to figure out the theology and take the eucharist again because it is such a vitally important part of the religion.
So basically, I don't consider this particular sacrament vital to a person's virtue (I've got plenty of non-Catholic friends and I don't think they're lacking virtue because they don't take the sacrament). I think at some point I personally will have to chose one way or the other (I can't indefinietly be Catholic without taking the eucharist) but I don't consider it a requirement for virtue in general.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm trying to decide whether "people would behave badly without belief in an external force" is more or less of a generalization than "people who think that people would behave badly without belief in an external force think that because they lack moral maturity themselves". Or whether either is rude.
It is making my head hurt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And again, taking the Eucharist when you are having theological troubles with it is both accepted and even potentially recommended by the Catholic Church.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I'm trying to decide whether "people would behave badly without belief in an external force" is more or less of a generalization than "people who think that people would behave badly without belief in an external force think that because they lack moral maturity themselves".
Both suppose to know things that the speaker couldn't and makes unwarranted assumptions.
Of course, only the speaker of one continues to insist over and over again that he's right.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
I think the point I was trying to make was that although I consider observing this sacrament vital to my religion, I don't think it is generally a requirement for human virtue.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you think that the rules of the Catholic Church on taking the Eucharist are meaningful and virtuous to you?
edit: I'm talking about a person's behavior and perception after they convert.
I started from the position where they are already, without an external force, made a commitment to a virtuous and meaningful life. If they truely convert to a religion, I bel;ieve that they are going to adopt the requirements of that religion as how to live a virtuous and meaningful life for themselves and that their previous experiences are likely going to make it easier for them to live according to this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Not that this is the entirety of my position, but you don't think people can say the people who, by their own admission, are "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" are morally immature?
No one (normally) has the capability to measure someone else's moral maturity or internal commitment to an ideal.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Meaningful, yes. Virtuous, in the sense of 'will I start doing bad things if I don't figure this out', not so much.
ETA: I see what you're getting at, but one of the things taught by Christianity is that even if you want to be a truly good person, you still have to work at it. Simply saying "wow, the existence of God was just proved to me" doesn't make you a perfect Christian (Muslim, Jew, whatever). There's still a lot of work involved, and sometimes people can't follow through with all the requirements.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No one (normally) has the capability to measure someone else's moral maturity or internal commitment to an ideal.
So that would be a no, you don't think that "the people who, by their own admission, are "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" are morally immature", correct?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There's still a lot of work involved, and sometimes people can't follow through with all the requirements.
I'm not saying that there isn't work or that people will not, at times, live up to what needs to be done.
I'm saying that the convert will adopt the standards of virtue and meaning of the religion and that the person who has developed an internal commitment to the ideal of a virtuous and meaningful life is likely going to have an easier time in trying to live up to this, in working towards it.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Easier than someone who hasn't converted? Of course! But what BB was saying is that a single miraculous event isn't necessarily enough to carry someone through all the ups and downs and difficulties of a real conversion. (ETA: enough to cause a person to "adopt the standards of virtue and meaning of the religion") Not if the only realization is "oh look, that guy's 2000 years old! There's the proof of God's existence I've been looking for"
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a nice starting point, though :-p
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it might be useful to revist how I got on this track.
BB's statement about how convert Tom would find living according to his religion difficult suggested to me that idea that religious people living a virtuous and meaningful life (by their own definitions of these terms) have it harder than non-religious people. I don't think that this is necessarily an accurate statement and that an argument can be made for the opposite being true, in a general case, anyway.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But what BB was saying is that a single miraculous event isn't necessarily enough to carry someone through all the ups and downs and difficulties of a real conversion. Not if the only realization is "oh look, that guy's 2000 years old! There's the proof of God's existence I've been looking for"
Looking at it from this perspective (the difficulty involved with the conversion, not with living in the religion), I completely agree. I even said something to that effect, in that I wouldn't consider an immortal person a demonstration of the rightness, of the virtue and meaning, if you will, of the religion that person professes.
I was starting from the standpoint of assuming that Tom's putative conversion was genuine. If we are still talking about the conversion, my comments lose a lot of their relevancy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:BB's statement about how convert Tom would find living according to his religion difficult suggested to me that idea that religious people living a virtuous and meaningful life (by their own definitions of these terms) have it harder than non-religious people.
Except, you know, BB didn't say this.
Repeating a falsehood over and over and over does not make it true.
I never pegged you for a GW Bush fan. Since you're using some of the same tactics as Bush, though, I'm going to have to reevaluate my stance.
Once again proving that it is utterly futile to make character judgments of the type you seem to think you're capable of.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...interesting. I think that there are different kinds of "harder" - and both may or may not apply to religious people.
There is the kind of religious person who sort of turns over the decision making to another authority. This may be more of less difficult when it comes to following rules, but it may be easier from an intellectual, self-examination, having to really think about things point of view. It may be easier for some people to not have to think about it, but the rules they have to follow are more stringent.
There is the type of person who doesn't recognize any authority and who has to come up with their own moral code. This may require some real intellectual and philosophical "work", but depending on the rules they make for themselves, could be more or less difficult to follow.
People in community also have some support that may not be as readily available to those who are "going it alone". And people who have developed their own moral code may have an easier time following rules that they "wrote" because those rules make sense to them.
And I think that most people are some combination/synthesis/balance of all of those things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Obviously I don't agree with your assement. I am perfectly willing to discuss our differening impressions in a civil manner. It does not appear to me that you are.
Also, I was hoping to get an answer to this question. Can I expect one?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:No one (normally) has the capability to measure someone else's moral maturity or internal commitment to an ideal.
So that would be a no, you don't think that "the people who, by their own admission, are "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" are morally immature", correct?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And I think that most people are some combination/synthesis/balance of all of those things.
I very much agree.
One thing that I think is missing from this is outcomes.
You were talking about people going through the process. No, obviously, this process doesn't really end until you die, but people do progress or at least change based on what they are doing.
I'm holding up the real intellectual and philosophical work as a more stable, deep, and ultimately more mature way of pursuing a life of virture and meaning than that of doing what you are told and relying on an external entity.
A person who progresses in that type manner, all other things being equal, is very likely going to be superior in the stablility, depth, and maturity of their morality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would agree (at least for me). I would add that being religious does not necessarily exempt one from that work. In fact, in my case, religions prompts me to engage more deeply in that work.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But I don't see morality or other spiritual fruits as the workmanship of human effort. I think the person who believes their morality to be deeply rooted and immovable is often up for a fall.
Though there are a lot of parables involving trees and integrity in Mormon lore. One involves a hidden wedge. Another is the olive grove, and very often in that bigger is not always better.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Not at all, but I think it can generally be said that a person who has come to a point where they have a commitment to a virtuous and meaningful life outside of religion has done a fair bit of this work.
I think it can also fairly be said that there are many religious people who do at most minimal amounts of this work, in large part because of the nature and structure of their religious beliefs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But I don't see morality or other spiritual fruits as the workmanship of human effort.
Then that presents you with either a negation of free will (i.e. God forces people to behave in a way contrary to their will) or a denial of the reality that non-religious people can have as good or better morality than religious people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Not at all, but I think it can generally be said that a person who has come to a point where they have a commitment to a virtuous and meaningful life outside of religion has done a fair bit of this work.
I think it can also fairly be said that there are many religious people who do at most minimal amounts of this work, in large part because of the nature and structure of their religious beliefs.
And there are plenty of non-religious people who don't think about their morality at all.
Could you explain a bit more about what you mean by "religious beliefs"? Do you mean more external or internal?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But I don't see morality or other spiritual fruits as the workmanship of human effort.
Then that presents you with either a negation of free will (i.e. God forces people to behave in a way contrary to their will) or a denial of the reality that non-religious people can have as good or better morality than religious people.
I think what she's saying is that it can't come from only human effort, that God has to be involved in some way. Your second part might be correct, though, it's one of the main reasons that religious people have a problem with non-religious people.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think what she's saying is that it can't come from only human effort, that God has to be involved in some way.
That would still involve God violating my free will.
quote:Your second part might be correct, though, it's one of the main reasons that religious people have a problem with non-religious people.
I'm not sure what the second part of this statement means. What is the reason that religious people have a problem with non-religious that you are talking about?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am perfectly willing to discuss our differening impressions in a civil manner. It does not appear to me that you are.
The idea that you are capable of understanding people on such a level as you've indicated precludes civil discussion.
It merits only derision.
quote:Also, I was hoping to get an answer to this question. Can I expect one?
I've answered several times now. I'm not a psychic, and never have claimed to be. What more do you want?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QB]
quote:I think what she's saying is that it can't come from only human effort, that God has to be involved in some way.
That would still involve God violating my free will.
God can't violate your free will if you go along willingly. That's one of the main tennets of Christianity--we have the free will to fight God or obey him. And since he's got our best interests in mind, it's a good idea to obey him.
quote:I'm not sure what the second part of this statement means. What is the reason that religious people have a problem with non-religious that you are talking about?
Sorry, that wasn't very clear--what I meant is that your second possibility, a "denial of the reality that non-religious people can have as good or better morality than religious people" is indeed what the theory is saying. That without a close connection to God, true morality (or true 'goodness') is not possible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The idea that you are capable of understanding people on such a level as you've indicated precludes civil discussion.
as I've said, the question isn't even a matter of understanding people. It's basically one of definition. The people have already said that they are "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so". The determination is whether that is an indicator of moral immaturity, or conversely, if the ability and desire to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing you from doing so can rightly be termed moral maturity.
You aren't disagreeing with my ability to assess people, as much as you are trying to make it about that. They've already made the assessment. You seem to be disagreeing with the definition.
If you feel that that is not an accurate definition, I would ask how you would define moral maturity, especially in relation to behavior absent an external constraining entity?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:God can't violate your free will if you go along willingly.
Right, and I explicitly reject the Christian God. I don't know if He exists or not, but I think that, as he is generally described, he is an evil entity. I don't think that he has my best interests in mind. I reject any influence that he holds over my behavior.
If I need this influence to be good, either I am not a good person or he is violating my free will.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:And since he's got our best interests in mind, it's a good idea to obey him.
I don't mean to be rude, certainly we've had far too much of that but...are we reading the same bible?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To cut through most of the last two pages of what appears to me to be oddly confrontational crap:
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that those people who believe that personal religion is necessary in order to behave morally believe that they would behave immorally without religion. As the other possible conclusion -- that they think they'd behave morally without religion, but that other people would not -- is fairly egotistical, it seems to me that taking them at their word is the least objectionable approach.
Nor do I think that it's particularly rude to observe that this is, almost definitionally, immature ethics.
In other words, I really don't understand what's rude about saying that people who assert that all morality is dependent upon religion are morally immature. It's not particularly presumptuous to form an opinion of people based upon what they have told you about themselves -- and someone who tells you that people wouldn't be moral unless they had God are telling you that he wouldn't be moral unless he had a God.
Honestly, Scott, I don't see why you're so offended by what Squicky's saying here. He's not saying he's a mind-reader. He's saying that, by their own admission, people who believe they need God to be moral are less ethically mature than people who don't.
---------
quote:Except, you know, BB didn't say this.
I'm pretty sure that BB did say this. But it's not abnormal, and I'm not insulted by it. I'm actually aware that it's practically Mormon doctrine that God doesn't prove His existence to avoid forcing people to live up to His impossibly high standards. I think that belief is pretty silly, myself, but I understand why someone might hold it; it's not offensive.
[ December 11, 2007, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom--
I'm torked when you do it, too. I just like you more than I like Squicky.
EDIT: ...so I don't gripe nearly as much when you flounce your arrogance around.
In reality, they amount to the same thing-- someone deciding, without fact, without anything but an oppositional view (and thus, prejudiced view) of someone else's opinion, that a person 'lacks commitment' or is 'morally immature.'
(Notice, please, that there are TWO terms I find offensive-- I don't know why everyone is focusing on just one)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We cannot choose whether to be influenced, whether by God or by the people around us or in some belief systems, by the devil. But we can choose which influence to follow. At least, that's the theory I'm operating on when I say these things.
I suppose on can try to influence oneself, but there will be a parallax effect in dealing with any new or unanticipated situation.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice.
If that is true, then the real god is not to be found in the bible.
(Edit: I'm not answering for Squick...I just happen to agree with his earlier comment.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Eowyn,
quote:Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice.
That's basically impossible. One of the major aspects of the God I would reject is one that would manipulate me in that way, who would interfere with my basic nature against my consent.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:He's saying that, by their own admission, people who believe they need God to be moral are less ethically mature than people who don't.
A person who needs to fear God to be moral is different from a person who is moral out of the love of God. One is his prisoner, the other is his child.
And it is a tenet of Mormonism that we become as little children. I suppose, in that sense, that I for one am not offended to be considered immature.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In reality, they amount to the same thing-- someone deciding, without fact, without anything but an oppositional view (and thus, prejudiced view) of someone else's opinion, that a person 'lacks commitment' or is 'morally immature.'
I'm not sure what an "oppositional view" has to do with anything. If someone says "I would not be a moral person if God didn't exist," they are saying that they are morally immature. As far as I can tell, the problem seems to be that you don't actually have a definition for moral maturity.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:And since he's got our best interests in mind, it's a good idea to obey him.
I don't mean to be rude, certainly we've had far too much of that but...are we reading the same bible?
Same bible, probably ^_^ but with drastically different interpretations, I'm willing to bet.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The problem is precisely as I've stated, Tom. Despite the fact that my morals and say, the morals of a cannibalistic, polygamous tribesman in New Guinea are very different, I'd never disparage his 'moral maturity.'
I don't know it; I can't know it. I disagree with his practices, but far be it from me to judge him on so deeply personal a matter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Eowyn, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your contributions and the way that you are handling yourself. On a somewhat selfish note, it's nice to be able to have a respectful conversation on topics like this where there is great disagreement. Thanks so much.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Scott R:
This may indeed be a definitional thing. Hmmmm...
Who's "moral maturity" *do* you feel you are qualified to judge then?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Despite the fact that my morals and say, the morals of a cannibalistic, polygamous tribesman in New Guinea are very different, I'd never disparage his 'moral maturity.'
That has little relevancy to what we are discussing. It's not morals themselves we are discussing, but rather how they are held.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:And since he's got our best interests in mind, it's a good idea to obey him.
I don't mean to be rude, certainly we've had far too much of that but...are we reading the same bible?
Same bible, probably ^_^ but with drastically different interpretations, I'm willing to bet.
That has to be it, as I'm not trying to interpret it. Just reading what it says.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Eowyn,
quote:Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice.
That's basically impossible. One of the major aspects of the God I would reject is one that would manipulate me in that way, who would interfere with my basic nature against my consent.
I don't think Eowyn means that he's being manipulative. He's taking the decisions you make and making good with them. If God isn't like that, passive and refusing to do anything with the world, we might as well be all atheists, or at least agnostics, because God wouldn't help us at all.
If what Eowyn says is true, which I find likely, God is not manipulating you. He's acting in your best interests and allowing you still to make your choices and not interfere with your nature.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If someone says "I would not be a moral person if God didn't exist," they are saying that they are morally immature.
No they aren't. You are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If someone says "I am two and a half feet tall," it is not inaccurate to say they are short -- and, moreover, to observe that they are confessing to being short (although not to thinking themselves short). Calling them "short" might be rude, depending on the situation, but it's not presumptuous.
By a reasonable definition of "short," a grown adult under three feet tall is short. By a reasonable definition of "mature," someone who requires a belief in God to behave morally is immature.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
C3PO, I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like Eowyn was suggesting that God was altering my nature or decision making process despite my explict wish that he would not do so. How is that not manipulating me?
That is, without God's actions or whatever, I would behave differently. Thus, God's actions have to be changing something, which is the thing that I will that he not do.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
MPH - the relation is definitional.
A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God keeping him in line is a morally immature.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, as I recall, you have assigned moral irresponsibly pretty broadly yourself on occasion. Why is moral immaturity so much worse?
I think there is a level of maturity in being moral without "someone" making you be moral. Doing my housework (for example) because I want my house to be clean is more mature than cleaning because someone is standing over me making me clean. (I am a very immature housecleaner.)
Eowyn-sana, I don't think that God would be quite so sneaky. I also think that the line (if there is one) between God and oneself is pretty darn fuzzy. What is "us" and what is God is not really two entirely different things. God, I believe, is not "an external force".
I do agree that goodness is impossible without God. Of course, for me, that is pretty much saying that goodness is impossible without goodness, so I may not be much help.
I think that goodness is possible without the "external force sky god" that we sometimes imagine is God.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think the whole conversation is a bit nonsense because I seriously doubt that religion does hold people back from acting immorally if they actually wanted to.
I have complete faith in the human ability to lie to themselves and justify their own behavior, no matter how dreadful and no matter the moral code they say they follow.
I also suspect that people are drawn to religions and moral laws, especially those with strict codes of behavior, not because they wish to act immorally and need to be stopped but precisely because they wish to act morally.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That has to be it, as I'm not trying to interpret it. Just reading what it says.
Reading without interpretation is not possible. Various groups have claimed to do so (with regard to the Bible) for centuries, but their "uninterpreted" reading is just another interpretation. Until someone finds a way to communicate concepts mind to mind without the interference of language, communication will always involve interpretation.
Witness the different interpretations of various posts on this thread, for example.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think the whole conversation is a bit nonsense because I seriously doubt that religion does hold people back from acting immorally if they actually wanted to.
I'm not quite ready to throw out the idea that fear of punishment and hope of reward has an effect on human behavior.
---
quote:I also suspect that people are drawn to religions and moral laws, especially those with strict codes of behavior, not because they wish to act immorally and need to be stopped but precisely because they wish to act morally.
It is important to realize that people are not one-dimensional. Motivations are complex things, with many, often competing elements. I don't think that it is anywhere near as simple as you are making out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: By a reasonable definition of "mature," someone who requires a belief in God to behave morally is immature.
That is based on assumptions about the relationship between God and morality that are not shared by everyone in this conversation.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: MPH - the relation is definitional.
A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God... is a morally immature.
No, I don't think that morality works like that.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
I didn't actually mean that God was directly playing around with your head. I meant that certain situations, certain sights, may be designed to show you something that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise, and this might influence your decisions down the road. (This can still be called manipulation, but since you're free to draw your own conclusions, it's hopefully not as objectionable)
C3PO rasies another valid point. God may be subtly influencing the effects of your actions, making your good actions better and dampening the effects of your bad decisions.
I don't actually pretend to understand how this would work, but I do believe that any good action is a step towards God and any bad action is a step away from Him, whether you realize it or not.
Then again, it is possible that if you tell God to butt out of your life, He will.
This has been a great discussion, thanks ^_^ Unfortunately, I haven't gotten nearly enough work done today, so I'm gonna have to say bye for tonight.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I think the whole conversation is a bit nonsense because I seriously doubt that religion does hold people back from acting immorally if they actually wanted to.
I have complete faith in the human ability to lie to themselves and justify their own behavior, no matter how dreadful and no matter the moral code they say they follow.
I also suspect that people are drawn to religions and moral laws, especially those with strict codes of behavior, not because they wish to act immorally and need to be stopped but precisely because they wish to act morally.
I don't disagree, JH. However, at least in academic-type philosophy & theology, there are an awful lot of arguments floating around that without a God there is either no such thing as morality, or there is no reason to be moral. I disagree with both stances, and I think others on this thread do too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That is based on assumptions about the relationship between God and morality that are not shared by everyone in this conversation.
No, it isn't. It is based on the fact that people who don't rely on God to behave morally are still quite capable of doing so.
There are no assumptions necessary.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God keeping him in line is a morally immature.
Is the child who is still willing to hold the parent's hand after being able to walk also immature? What of the child who refuses to hold the parent's hand?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: MPH - the relation is definitional.
A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God... is a morally immature.
No, I don't think that morality works like that.
All right, then. Could you explain to me how your understanding of morality works is different, then? Under your understanding of the concept, is it possible to be morally immature? If so, what would that look like? And if not, why not?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I don't disagree, JH. However, at least in academic-type philosophy & theology, there are an awful lot of arguments floating around that without a God there is either no such thing as morality, or there is no reason to be moral. I disagree with both stances, and I think others on this thread do too.
Um, so do I, and I'd wager a great deal so does 90% of those who disagree with Squicky in this thread.
I still think that pretend to be able to read minds and saying those those who tie their morality to the Lord are immature is both rude (which - whatever. who cares.) and ignorant of how the religious mind and morality works (which is more serious, because it means the same mistake will be made over and over again).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I still think that pretend to be able to read minds and saying those those who tie their morality to the Lord are immature is both rude (which - whatever. who cares.) and ignorant of how the religious mind and morality works (which is more serious, because it means the same mistake will be made over and over again).
And I'm stuck wondering who on this thread said any of that?
You are again not responding to anything anyone has said. I will ask you again to try to treat people (myself in particular) with respect.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That has to be it, as I'm not trying to interpret it. Just reading what it says.
Reading without interpretation is not possible. Various groups have claimed to do so (with regard to the Bible) for centuries, but their "uninterpreted" reading is just another interpretation. Until someone finds a way to communicate concepts mind to mind without the interference of language, communication will always involve interpretation.
Witness the different interpretations of various posts on this thread, for example.
I'm not using it to judge how I live my life, so I don't see how I'm interpreting it. Perhaps by not assuming it's true when I read it I am therefore interpreting it? I dunno.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Javert, Simple example. Can you read Greek and Hebrew?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:I don't disagree, JH. However, at least in academic-type philosophy & theology, there are an awful lot of arguments floating around that without a God there is either no such thing as morality, or there is no reason to be moral. I disagree with both stances, and I think others on this thread do too.
Um, so do I, and I'd wager a great deal so does 90% of those who disagree with Squicky in this thread.
JH, I see Squicky as protesting against those who do hold those stances. As I understood his position, he's saying that those who believe that without God there's either no morality or there's no reason to be moral are morally immature. If you disagree with those stances then I don't think anything he's said can be applied to you or others who are likeminded
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Javert, Simple example. Can you read Greek and Hebrew?
Point well taken.
But as the majority of people in this country don't speak those languages, what I'm doing is reading their bible, and trying to just take it for what it says.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I disagree with his statements and I think such an judgment of those who believe God is necessary to morality reveals (among other things) a profound ignorance of why people are religious in the first place and how that religion affects them and their thinking.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I disagree with his statements and I think such an judgment of those who believe God is necessary to morality reveals a profound ignorance of why people are religious in the first place and how that religion affects them and their thinking.
Could you explain why you disagree with my statements?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I would disagree with the general idea of moral maturity. I think morality is a state, and not an cumulative acquisition. But I'm off until tomorrow, I suspect.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I think such an judgment of those who believe God is necessary to morality reveals a profound ignorance of why people are religious in the first place and how that religion affects them and their thinking.
Well said.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Javert, Simple example. Can you read Greek and Hebrew?
Point well taken.
But as the majority of people in this country don't speak those languages, what I'm doing is reading their bible, and trying to just take it for what it says.
"Their Bible" is an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation. And when you "just try to take it for what it says" you are still interpreting. Even reading something in contemporary English by someone who shares a similar context with you, you are still interpreting. Heck, even listening to someone, face to face with inflection and physical cues, you are still interpreting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That has to be it, as I'm not trying to interpret it. Just reading what it says.
Most literature teachers would agree that's not possible -- for the Bible or any other written work.
And that's ignoring all the issues of translation and archaic language and concepts.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Javert, everyone is always intrepreting. You bring your vocabulary, your cultural assumptions, your personal experience, your knowledge of history, religion, people, literature with you when you read. All those things affect how you interpret/understand the words.
When reading about often abstract concepts, it's even more extreme.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:By a reasonable definition of "mature," someone who requires a belief in God to behave morally is immature.
TomDavidson, I am not going to disagree with you here, because the statement implies a misunderstanding of what religion really is.
If religion is just a moral philosophy with a code of constraints, then it is not mature to rely upon that to ensure moral behavior. It could help in many cases, but that is not what religion is really all about.
True religion is the objective reality of the universe, not opinion or theory or philosophy. It is the ultimate science. How you understand that objective reality, how you acknowledge it and commit yourself to it in recognition of its consequences, constitutes your own personal faith.
Defined this way, moral behavior is what results from your own conclusions about what is good and what is evil, and how much you care about it.
There are varying levels of maturity for anyone in anything, of course. Even those who look to a righteousness and goodness outside of themselves and above themselves, often find encouragement and motivation to do good by being mindful of the rewards of pursuing good and opposing evil, and of the punishments for failing in these things. When one reaches full maturity, however, even rewards or fear of punishment lessen as motivating factors.
Let me give an example from the life of Moses. When God proposed that Israel be wiped out because of having just violated its oath to God, and God would make a new chosen nation out of Moses and his children, Moses responded: "Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves. But now, if Thou wilt, forgive their sin-- and if not, please blot me out from Thy book which Thou hast written!" (Exodus 32:31b-32; NASB)
This is one of the most astonishing passages in Scripture--astonishing to us immature human beings. Moses was offering to have his own name blotted out of the Book of Life, so he would cease to exist and never live again--for the sake of the people for whom he was responsible. Moses sought no reward. To him, what was right and good and affirming of selfless love, was so important, it exceeded the importance of his own existence, and having any hope of reward for himself, ever.
This was a demonstration of true maturity in a follower of God--because He acted in accord with the loving nature of God Himself, Who is Ultimate reality. Indeed, we Christians recognize that here Moses was revealing himself to be a type of the Saviour of all mankind, Jesus Christ, who on the Cross would show God sacrificing Himself, being willing to risk spending eternity unconscious in the grave, in the hope of saving mankind from having to be wiped out of existence. As Isaiah prophetically forecast: "When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:10-11; NKJV)
This is what enabled Jesus not to chuck it all and come down from the Cross in divine anger. He chose to go through with it because He saw there were those who had faith in Him, and there would be a generation of the Redeemed who would result from His sacrifice.
Moses, of course, was not allowed to bear the iniquities of the children of Israel; he was not qualified to. God replied to Moses' offer to sacrifice himself: "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." (Exodus 32:33) But then He told Moses to continue leading the people. There would still be punishment, but He would not eradicate them. He would still be with them. Obviously God was pleased with Moses. He was learning to be a True Shepherd, like God is a Shepherd.
[ December 11, 2007, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Warning: This is only for the thick skinned, I suspect that many may be offended no matter which side of the issue you're on. (That said, you made it this far into the thread...) If you wish to proceed the relevant part is around 19 minutes into the interview.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am not going to dive headfirst into the fray, but I will say that the idea that people who do not believe in God have no reason not to do ill things has been put forth as a claim on this board, and not by a fringe member. Mr. Squicky isn't just pulling this out of his hat -- although it may well not be a belief held to by many on the board (I have little to no idea, actually), it has been represented quite matter-of-factly in the past.
Actually, it was presented by a very kind and caring person to whom I responded most irately about it, and so I am not going to quote/link to it. That is probably best left in the past. I can tell you, though, that it seems to not be an uncommon belief with some of those I interact with offline (some, not all, and likely not a majority, by the way, but it is there).
---
Edited to add for clarification: What I mean to say is that I don't see that particular branch of the discussion as a straw man, but a real and sincere position for some that is worth noting. Maybe it is held by none here right now, but it is not foreign to this venue.
I myself think that there is likely to be a bit of a cognitive dichotomy for many I know who hold this view -- i.e., that it is true on theoretical grounds, but that one's own friends who are areligious are not necessarily without any moral standards. This seems to me to be both the most charitable and the most likely perspective, so it's the one I find most compelling.
[And I frankly will admit to holding several cognitive dichotomies myself, by the way. I don't mean that as a dig or slam, just a part of being human in the world.]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Backing up to something scott said on the last page:
Having different views on what is morally acceptable isn't necessarily an indicator of moral maturity. Someone viewing cannibalism as morally proper doesn't tell us how he arrived at the conclusion that eatting people is correct, so we can't make judgements about his moral maturity. (We might, however, make judgements about his moral conclusions).
On the other hand, a statement about how one arrives at moral decisions is a statement about one's own moral maturity. Stating "I cannot have morals without god," is a statement about the decision making process, and thus a reflection on maturity
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I understood (and I may be wrong) that the difference in maturity being referenced was not of what morals but of why.
"I won't do it because I believe it is wrong" vs "I won't do it because God will punish me if I do."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Isn't there a hierarchy of some sorts? *draws on vague memories of a sociology of religion class from before her mission*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That was my understanding as well, Kate.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: On the other hand, a statement about how one arrives at moral decisions is a statement about one's own moral maturity. Stating "I cannot have morals without god," is a statement about the decision making process, and thus a reflection on maturity
I think this is the part that was confusing some people. [Hypothetical] When people say "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" shows that they do not understand why God considers it bad to cause violence in the first place. It is equivalent to a child thinking "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." It shows a lack of understanding about the actual principles behind the morals. I think that to understand the moral code of the Bible requires understanding the reasons why Jesus did what he did, and I think Jesus summarizes that moral code very simply with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule may not be everything the Bible has to say about morality but it certainly provides a very strong core for Christian morality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Threads, I think that is too simple. I think there can also be value and maturity deciding to obey God for the sake of obeying (not from fear of punishment). This is tricky because I think it needs to be a thought out decision rather than a "default" position because you don't want to think about it or because of habit. Open-eyed obedience rather than blind obedience.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: When people say "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" shows that they do not understand why God considers it bad to cause violence in the first place. It is equivalent to a child thinking "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." It shows a lack of understanding about the actual principles behind the morals. I think that to understand the moral code of the Bible requires understanding the reasons why Jesus did what he did, and I think Jesus summarizes that moral code very simply with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule may not be everything the Bible has to say about morality but it certainly provides a very strong core for Christian morality.
I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Something bugs me a bit about your analogy, Threads, but I don't have the time to sit & think about the issue. I feel like you're somehow straying into Euthyphro territory, where there's a lot of philosophical dispute - are things moral/good because God says they are, or does God say things are moral/good because they are?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the analogy fails because it is equating wanting to please someone with fear of punishment. For it to work as an analogy either the first part of it would have to be "I want to hit this person but I won't because if I do God will <strike me with lightening, give me a toothache, send me to hell, whatever> or the second part would have to be "I won't steal because my parents would be disappointed in me."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
I think, again, it would depend on motivation. If you're following the pithy saying because you believe that following the pithy sayings of some book is required by someone standing over your shoulder, that's no more mature than not hitting people because you believe someone's standing over your shoulder.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: When people say "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" shows that they do not understand why God considers it bad to cause violence in the first place. It is equivalent to a child thinking "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." It shows a lack of understanding about the actual principles behind the morals. I think that to understand the moral code of the Bible requires understanding the reasons why Jesus did what he did, and I think Jesus summarizes that moral code very simply with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule may not be everything the Bible has to say about morality but it certainly provides a very strong core for Christian morality.
I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
Why not? (honest question - I really don't have an answer myself)
edit: ehh...nevermind. Stupid computer.
[ December 11, 2007, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
If you're just going off the two phrases, I'd say the first has a lot more complex/deep reasoning than the second. The first deals with the concepts of others, equality, fairness, etc, while the second is just about the desire of the a particular being.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I logged in two nights ago to see if Lisa had answered my question, and saw Rivka's little "pat pat" post. It made me pause, because the internet makes it easy to get tunnel vision; you can forget that other people are reading. So, while it's entertaining to watch Lisa fly off the handle, I don't mean to insult anyone, least of all people I have respect for. So instead of posting I logged off and spent a rather sleepless night thinking about what I wanted to say and hoping Rivka isn't too mad. I apologise for throwing my comment out as an intentional barb.
KoM still seems to think that I meant that the bible says that god is feminine. Let me be clear. I was referring to linguistic feminine modifiers only. As for "retracting the statement," I didn't invent this idea, I heard it first from a jewish woman who told me something like "in the original texts the word for god is both plural, and feminine." Years later, I saw a footnote in a Hebrew bible that said that elohim was plural, and I went "duh, I know that 'im' is a plural suffix." The same footnote says that the plural is used as a "royal we." It seems to me that a hebrew bible in a synagogue is a pretty reliable source. The feminine modifier bit is all over the internet, but I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't looked for a source to provide to Lisa. I also saw this mentioned in either a Time, Newsweek or U.S. News and World Report article on the origins of religion. That was what gave me enough to think it must have some basis in fact.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think there can also be value and maturity deciding to obey God for the sake of obeying (not from fear of punishment).
I didn't mean to eliminate that as a possibility. It probably would have been better for me to replace "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" with "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God would punish me." I meant to specifically talk about why fear of punishment reasons for not committing an act show a lack of understanding about why those punishments exist in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
That's why I said it was a summary. Blindly following a generalization doesn't show any understanding either, but that isn't related to my point.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think the analogy fails because it is equating wanting to please someone with fear of punishment. For it to work as an analogy either the first part of it would have to be "I want to hit this person but I won't because if I do God will <strike me with lightening, give me a toothache, send me to hell, whatever> or the second part would have to be "I won't steal because my parents would be disappointed in me."
I intentionally said "spank". Disappointment may be a factor in many cases but there is also the fear of punishment (spanking, timeout, loss of privileges).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I intentionally said "spank". Disappointment may be a factor in many cases but there is also the fear of punishment (spanking, timeout, loss of privileges).
Exactly: you said spank in the situation you proffered as analogous.
But punishment wasn't necessarily present in the first situation: "God wouldn't have wanted me to."
Hence, your analogy fails.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I already clarified that in my response.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So are you admitting your analogy fails? I can't tell.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Yes, my initial one did. What I should have said was "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God would punish me." along with "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." I was just trying to address the idea of following God's command out of fear of punishment. I haven't gotten the impression that anyone on Hatrack does that, but it is still an existing attitude.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dag and Scott's assessments about what I meant by that are correct.
----
I don't think Mr S' incredulity about John the Apostle still being alive was offensive, at least to me, I can see how others were rubbed the wrong way.
edit:
Tom: I said,
quote:You'd be surprised how an immortal apostle would do little for you when a religion's requirements become too difficult to perform or to understand.
This was not me saying, "Tom you in particular would be surprised..." It was statement on people in general. You may very well be right that his visit would finally do it for you, but I'm unconvinced John visiting somebody would actually produce in of itself the lasting conversion somebody needs in order to be like God. It may start them on a path where they continue to make the correct choices necessary for such a conversion.
The pharisees of the New Testament saw many signs and never converted. I don't think that situation is a fringe outcome.
[ December 11, 2007, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Glenn, my post actually wasn't aimed at you at all. It was aimed at the last post on the first page.
And I wasn't mad.
As far as the Hebrew grammar, Lisa is correct. I've heard all the claims about pluralization and feminine endings, and as far as I can tell, they come from people who are insufficiently familiar with the details of biblical Hebrew. And almost always have an agenda.
*shrug* I also don't think they're terribly worth getting worked up over.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The pharisees of the New Testament saw many signs and never converted. I don't think that situation is a fringe outcome.
The writers of the New Testament, who explicitly defined themselves in opposition to the pharisees, claimed to have produced many signs which unaccountably failed to convert the pharisees. Curious, that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, as I recall, you have assigned moral irresponsibly pretty broadly yourself on occasion. Why is moral immaturity so much worse?
Because one is a judgment about behavior, which is observable and verifiable.
The other is a judgment based on unknowables-- things like moral maturity and internal commitment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That is, kmboots-- although we disagree very strongly about the role of sex in God's plan, I have never considered you morally immature, or denigrated your commitment to Good.
It's not something I've even considered. I don't know; I can't know.
No one can.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The pharisees of the New Testament saw many signs and never converted. I don't think that situation is a fringe outcome.
The writers of the New Testament, who explicitly defined themselves in opposition to the pharisees, claimed to have produced many signs which unaccountably failed to convert the pharisees. Curious, that.
OK well then we will use the 3 men who claimed to have seen the gold plates Joseph Smith translated and handled them. They claimed an angel presented it to them and a voice from heaven confirmed the authenticity of the artifact. All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
If they declared him a fallen prophet then they are saying that it was the church that had gone astray, not themselves. In other words, they may have still had their faith, just not in Joseph Smith and his church.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That is, kmboots-- although we disagree very strongly about the role of sex in God's plan, I have never considered you morally immature, or denigrated your commitment to Good.
It's not something I've even considered. I don't know; I can't know.
No one can.
Well except kmbboots herself, but I suppose even then people cannot always judge themselves accurately.
Myself included, I'd hate to think people thought the above statement was directed at kmbboots only.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
If they declared him a fallen prophet then they are saying that it was the church that had gone astray, not themselves. In other words, they may have still had their faith, just not in Joseph Smith and his church.
Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebody's conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
[ December 11, 2007, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebodies conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
So when a church goes into apostasy, those that don't follow it have lost their faith?
That's implicit in the claim of Joseph Smith being a fallen prophet. That says nothing about their faith position, only about their position with regard to a claimed prophet. Any affect that the experience with the plates may have produced has not necessarily been discarded.
Oh course I view conversion as being to an idea not to an organization. I realize that's a little foreign to the LDS way of things where there is not really any separation between the LDS Church and its doctrines. The idea of someone leaving the LDS Church but still believing LDS doctrine is viewed as strange but it's not impossible, given the many splinter groups out there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:although we disagree very strongly about the role of sex in God's plan, I have never considered you morally immature, or denigrated your commitment to Good.
What if kmboots said something like "I'm not really all that committed to Good" or "you know, sometimes I really enjoy killing a complete stranger in the most painful way possible" or even "I'm good, but I have to admit that I wouldn't be if I didn't think I'd go to Hell if I weren't."
Would you really not question her commitment to Good at that point?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebody's conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
Are you suggesting then that it is bad for an apostle to attempt to convince someone of the truth of his beliefs, because that person might later change her mind?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK well then we will use the 3 men who claimed to have seen the gold plates Joseph Smith translated and handled them. They claimed an angel presented it to them and a voice from heaven confirmed the authenticity of the artifact. All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
If I had at one time been in on a scam, and testified in its favour; and later had a falling out with the author of the scam; I think I would not want to draw a lot of attention to my earlier testimonies. Unpleasant questions might be asked. Likewise, was the question actually asked? I mean, did anyone come out and say to these people, "So were you lying about the golden plates?" It seems to me that "X is a fallen prophet" is a pretty broad indictment, which might well be understood to include "And we were under his spell when we said all that stuff, but we're all better now". (We could also note that the golden plates were not then so well known as they are now; the Mormons being at the time rather a fringe group.) And finally, although I might, say, take John the Beloved's age as proof of his god existing, that's not the same thing as taking his word on the nature of that god. Would you like to make any assertions about the moral character of these three witnesses after their rejection of JS?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebody's conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
Are you suggesting then that it is bad for an apostle to attempt to convince someone of the truth of his beliefs, because that person might later change her mind?
No, I am saying I don't think John were he trying to convert somebody would use his identity or some indicator of his advanced age to awe somebody into joining.
There is also a strong argument to made in Mormonism that the prophet cannot apostatize. Or rather God would not pick somebody who was going to fall in the first place. It would be hard to separate the church from the doctrine but I do know people who do it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn, my post actually wasn't aimed at you at all.
No, I knew that, it's just that it made me suddenly realize that the dialog between Lisa and me wasn't occurring in a vacuum, and that throwing barbs at Lisa might hit another target.
quote:*shrug* I also don't think they're terribly worth getting worked up over.
Good to know. Lisa gets worked up easily, and for whatever reason, I was in a snarky mood.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: They were asked repeatedly by newspapers, reporters and anti mormon organizations about their account of that experience. edit: as in after they left the church.
Why should I pass judgment on their characters? I can't say I know all the motivating factors that prompted their decision. I could certainly speculate but what good does that do? They could have had good reasons or terrible reasons for making the choices they did. Two of them ended up rejoining the church so take that for what you will.
[ December 11, 2007, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Glenn, my post actually wasn't aimed at you at all.
No, I knew that, it's just that it made me suddenly realize that the dialog between Lisa and me wasn't occurring in a vacuum, and that throwing barbs at Lisa might hit another target.
Ah!
Appreciated. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Because one is a judgment about behavior, which is observable and verifiable.
The other is a judgment based on unknowables-- things like moral maturity and internal commitment.
See, this was why I asked the question of you that I did previously. It seemed like your logic was running into a direction where you were going come to the conclusion that moral maturity is inherently unknowable.
Is that true, are you saying that moral maturity is inherently unknowable? Or is it just moral *immaturity* that is unknowable and that moral *maturity* is still identifiable?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There is also a strong argument to made in Mormonism that the prophet cannot apostatize. Or rather God would not pick somebody who was going to fall in the first place. It would be hard to separate the church from the doctrine but I do know people who do it.
That's circular, though. In any case it just requires you to believe that the prophet wasn't chosen in the first place, if you see what I mean.
quote:They were asked repeatedly by newspapers, reporters and anti mormon organizations about their account of that experience. edit: as in after they left the church.
And what did they say? Links, please.
quote:Why should I pass judgment on their characters?
Because the question was, given a man convinced by some tangible evidence of the existence of the Christian god, would he still be able to rebel against the moral strictures of that god? Let's try to think what are the possible scenarios:
1. The witnesses are deliberately lying in support of Smith.
2. The witnesses are convinced of the existence of the golden plates and through that of a god, but believe that Smith is no longer in communion with that god.
3. The witnesses are convinced of the god, but find themselves unable to follow its morality and therefore rebel against Smith.
The first case is uninteresting for this purpose. We are trying to determine if a man, convinced of the existence of a god with power to punish, can then deliberately rebel against that god. (As opposed to yielding to temptation, of course - I think all Christian churches recognise such a distinction.) If the men aren't convinced in the first place, then their subsequent behaviour is of no interest to us.
The judgement of character would be evidence for deciding between cases 2 and 3. Presumably, people who thought Smith out of grace, but still believed in his god, would behave well by their lights and ours, while people deliberately rebelling against an unbearable god would behave badly. So, to support your contention that people with knowledge of a god's existence can still rebel against it - again this is distinct from merely yielding to temptation knowing that it's wrong - you need to show that your witnesses
a) Believed Smith's god existed b) Found its morality unbearable, and that is why they went apostate.
Supporting evidence for b) would be bad behaviour on their part after the split.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I'll get to your points probably tomorrow, I have to stop distracting myself away from this research paper. Or if other hatrackers cover the points I would have made I'll say anything I think they missed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Come to think of it, we have evidence of the opposite pattern on Hatrack: To wit, Lisa finds the rules of her god a bit annoying, if I understand her correctly, but she nevertheless obeys because she is convinced that her god exists.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Where I on the other hand, when I was younger and went to church, couldn't reconcile the idea of a loving God with one who would make church so boring and force me to miss sleeping in and watching TV on my weekend. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I can't believe that the last half of this thread has been debating the merits of Squicky's straw man assertion.
I can't believe we've been so enraged by it we were blind to what it was.
And another thing, morals don't exist because God does. 2 Nephi 2 establishes that without right and wrong, without "free will," God does not exist. I'm not entirely sure why this is. Oh, wait, he would exist, he would just cease to be God.
Yes, Mormons believe in a very strange God. And our Savior is equally strange. He atones for all sin but saves only those who sincerely desire it. It is strange because the desire and choice must come from me.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Personally, I believe God is the source of good. Everyone is free to choose how to behave, but He sets the definition.
I'm more concerned with punishment in secular matters. God's standards are impossibly high so all I can do is my best. He'll forgive me. The police will write me a ticket even if I missed the reduced speed sign.
With God, I'm more worried about trying to hit His standards. I've got one coworker I'd love to put in her place when she directs one of her little passive-aggressive snits at me. I don't because of that passage about how anyone can be nice to folks that are nice to them first. You're not proving anything unless you're nice to the people who are actively mean to you.
I'm not sure where that falls on the maturity scale. I'm not up to doing it out of love for all humans, so I'm definitely short of where I consider mature. However, I'm doing something I don't want because it's the right thing even though I won't get anything for it. So it's not where I'd rank immature, either.
I certainly wouldn't bother if I didn't believe in God, but I'm pretty sure I'd have a different scale for my morality then.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom:
How do you feel about people who take anti-depressants? Or people who go to a psychologist? Are they morally immature because they're using an external source as a sounding board/behavior check?
:shakes head:
quote:What if kmboots said something like "I'm not really all that committed to Good" or "you know, sometimes I really enjoy killing a complete stranger in the most painful way possible" or even "I'm good, but I have to admit that I wouldn't be if I didn't think I'd go to Hell if I weren't."
Would you really not question her commitment to Good at that point?
Two of your three examples would never be said by sane people; one of those hinges on an action which I've explicitly stated is capable of being accurately judged.
The third ("I'm good 'cause I don't wanna go to Hell,") isn't what I agree with doctrinally, but as I've indicated, I cannot judge someone's moral maturity.
None of those examples are pertinent to the original quotation which I took exception with:
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
The assumption is that needing (or saying you need) an external impetus to "do good" is an indication of immature morality and a lack of commitment to behave correctly.
It's not any better when it's said by Squicky than when it's implied by Romney. They're both making the same mistake-- judging people on terms that they have no capability of seeing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Come to think of it, we have evidence of the opposite pattern on Hatrack: To wit, Lisa finds the rules of her god a bit annoying, if I understand her correctly, but she nevertheless obeys because she is convinced that her god exists.
True.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How do you feel about people who take anti-depressants? Or people who go to a psychologist? Are they morally immature because they're using an external source as a sounding board/behavior check?
Again, you're not quite getting the point. It's not the use of a "sounding board" that's the problem -- although, as an atheist, I personally reject the idea that anyone out there is successfully using God as a "sounding board," either -- but rather the implied source of the impulse.
quote:The assumption is that needing (or saying you need) an external impetus to "do good" is an indication of immature morality and a lack of commitment to behave correctly.
Yes. That's pretty much the definition of "immature morality."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that anyone can accurately make that judgment about another person (or group of people).
I think that thinking one can make that judgment short-circuits conversations about morality because it instills a false sense of knowledge.
I wasn't missing the point-- I was making an analogy that you don't agree with. I understand your point well enough.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Personally, I believe God is the source of good. Everyone is free to choose how to behave, but He sets the definition.
- - - emphasis added - - -
I personally find this wrong on so many levels ...
To start, this is the most probable source of the vast majority of the intolerance in the world, in all Human history.
A.
[edited bolded segments]
[ December 12, 2007, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, if that sentence read 'God is a source of good' I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There's a mound of evidence against it the way it's written now (depending, of course, on how you want to quantify 'good').
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The idea is perfectly sound, but only with some caveats.
For me goodness transcends God, as he himself has committed himself to the path of righteousness and obeys it's precepts. But as his creation we are totally reliant on him to reveal to us what goodness is. Were God to have completely cut off humanity from Himself at the beginning, we would have all sunk into darkness and killed each other off.
So yes in a sense God is the source of all that is good for us as without him we would fail to find goodness.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
What good is "goodness" without tolerance?
A.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: What good is "goodness" without tolerance?
A.
Why can't tolerance be encapsulated in goodness?
It's not as if absolute tolerance is good by itself.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why can't tolerance be encapsulated in goodness?
It's not as if absolute tolerance is good by itself.
1) Tolerance can be "encapsulated" in "goodness" (I'd prefere it that way).
2) Absolute anything is not "good by itself".
I'm saying here that the definition of "goodness" as I qouted it before, is a source of intolerance.
Why not set a definition that avoids that?
A.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Where did you define "goodness?"
Intolerance is not necessarily evil.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Where did you define "goodness?"
Intolerance is not necessarily evil.
True. I myself am intolerant of intolerance on a regular basis. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Where did you define "goodness?"
Intolerance is not necessarily evil.
I didn't define "goodness", I quoted AvidReader talking about "good".
I agree that intolerance is not "necessarily evil". I'm just saying that the level of intolerance that comes out from that particular definition should be avoided.
A.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm just saying that the level of intolerance that comes out from that particular definition should be avoided.
It depends on what behaviors and ideologies you're calling "intolerant."
Here's the quote from AvidReader:
quote:God is the source of good. Everyone is free to choose how to behave, but He sets the definition.
I don't see how this ideology necessarily leads to the bad kind of intolerance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I can't believe that the last half of this thread has been debating the merits of Squicky's straw man assertion.
To be honest, I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding the "enragement" in the first place.
Bear with me for a second here because this is going to sound weird. See as you mentioned on page 7, "it is a tenet of Mormonism that we become as little children." Furthermore, when I was doing an analysis of Mitt Romney's speech I noticed that there was an unusually prominent line along the lines of "We believe that all humans are the children of God."
Now, I do not know if this feature is especially pronounced in Mormonism, but it seems that this is just an extension of the theme that many Christians have of God as a father figure.
This submissive imagery reminds me of places that I'm sure someone else could detail more clearly, but really quickly I'm thinking of things like the phrase "The Kingdom of God" (even after one dies, one is not yet mature as God, it is not a "Republic of God" or a "Democracy of God") and the imagery of priests as shepherds and churchgoers as sheep.
So forget that Squickly deemed some portion of theists as morally immature. It seems like Christians are intent on calling everyone children, period, which is pretty much the first definition of immature.
Therefore the response should not be "Hey! We're not morally immature!" instead it should "Yeah, we're all immature, period. We said so ourselves. But do not presume that you're *more* mature"
i.e. the anger is not that someone called you immature, morally or otherwise, many people including Mitt Romney call you immature with no anger. Instead, it would seem that the anger is that Squickly as an outsider said it with (and this is the important part) the presumption that someone other than God is more mature, namely himself.
Edit to add: not "you" specifically, but the particular theists that he targeted obviously
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
We believe that we are literally the spirit children of God. It isn't a metaphor or imagery. He is literally our Father in Heaven.
"Immature" is much, much too pejorative and (worse) inaccurate to describe our spiritual development and our relationship with our heavenly father.
I think Squicky does believe that he's more mature than most of the people he speaks pejoratively of. That's cute.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm an atheist. I pretty much have to think that its a metaphor or imagery. The alternative is that you're all literally children of nothing
But seriously, is the only issue really the pejorative and its associated connotations? Would it have been any better if he had switched words? That instead of "immature" if he had said "child-like" or "childish" in keeping with metaphor?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It depends. When used in the same context (as a contrast the morality of those who do not believe in God or whatever), it would still be wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I want to make sure it's understood-- my problem with Squicky's statement has nothing to do with belief or non-belief.
It has to do with the idea that he can know something about someone's character that is essentially unknowable.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Here's the quote from AvidReader:
quote:God is the source of good. Everyone is free to choose how to behave, but He sets the definition.
I don't see how this ideology necessarily leads to the bad kind of intolerance.
(Note: I won’t forget that AvidReader stated a personal belief.)
The way I see it, defining “good” as being produced only by one specific divinity, is the main problem. (I also think it is circular logic).
We won’t be able to agree if that divinity really exists, and therefore I’ll believe I can be good regardless of that existence, while AvidReader wouldn’t.
If I show that I can be “good” even if I don’t believe in the existence of that divinity, the response would be that “the divinity influences me even if I reject it” or that “my good deeds are a step toward that divinity, even if I don’t realise it”, therefore diminishing my free will. (I find that paradoxical). So whatever I do, I have to admit that I’m wrong about something: either I do “evil” (when I don’t do “good”), or I’m wrong about the existence of the deity (when I do that “good”).
This “justifies” the righteousness of the one who “knows and accepts that deity” which in turn “justifies” the intolerance not only toward the “evil doers” but also toward those that don’t accept that they can’t be “good” while rejecting the (existence of the) divinity.
Another problem with the definition is the fact that when I find a stance where the “acts” of that divinity, as they are reported, contradicts the definition of “good” (that comes from that same divinity), AvidReader says: no, that’s not inconsistent, it’s because the divinity defines “good” and can therefore do it even while saying otherwise. As someone who doesn’t believe in that deity, I see all this is just as a way of “justifying” inconsistent interpretation of facts (not forgetting that not believing in those facts would eliminate the inconsistency, yet I’m not the one believing in them).
I won’t forget the egocentrism that one has to espouse in order to be able to declare to be in possession of the “right interpretation” of the word of a deity, while we as Humans have just a certain “volume” at the scale of the Universe.
Remember, it’s the way I see it, and that’s how I understand the way the most of the intolerance in the Human history was, and still is, “justified”.
I might be wrong, though.
A.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It has to do with the idea that he can know something about someone's character that is essentially unknowable.
I'm coming into this kind of late, but I think it's only unknowable if you're talking about absolute knowledge. Based on a person's actions and statements, you can 'know' to at least a moderate degree of certainty.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Were God to have completely cut off humanity from Himself at the beginning, we would have all sunk into darkness and killed each other off.
How do you know this? Wouldn't it be just as possible that we'd develop cooperative relationships which allowed peaceful coexistence so long as resources were sufficient to support the population? I don't see why anarchy and evil would be the default.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It has to do with the idea that he can know something about someone's character that is essentially unknowable.
Thankfully, as has been explained by at least 5 people multiple times, this isn't actually addressing what I was saying.
It's just dogma that you keep repeating instead of addressing what was being said.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:So yes in a sense God is the source of all that is good for us as without him we would fail to find goodness.
Of course, if you believe in god then you can say that god's the source of everything, inasmuch as nothing would exist without his influence. That's a pretty useless stance to take for this discussion, because it leads to someone like me saying that, by your reasoning, god is also the source of all that is evil because without him none of it would exist. Platitudes are great for motivational posters but lousy for discussions.
Unless you're saying not that god is the only source of goodness but rather the only path to discover it, which is just as ridiculous as the original quote. Since it's pretty easy to produce examples of people who found goodness without god.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Since it's pretty easy to produce examples of people who found goodness without god.
I can imagine a response somewhat along the lines of, "No, God still influenced them, they just weren't aware of it."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, It seemed to me that you were claiming that followers of your religion have it harder than people who don't follow it, and specifically, non-religious people. Is that not accurate?
If so, then I clearly misread you. Sorry about that.
---
quote:Were God to have completely cut off humanity from Himself at the beginning, we would have all sunk into darkness and killed each other off.
We've had this discussion before, but I don't know if it was ever resolved. This seems to me to suggest that God must not only bring morality, but perception and the ability to reason as well and that human beings are, by default, programmed to destroy.
It's pretty easy to reason out how being totally, unreservedly evil is going to destroy any chance of living. To a certain extent, that's the basis of the Social Contract. In your postulation, either man without God can't perceive this or is incapable of reasoning that, therefore, in order to serve his own interests, he can't be all kinds of evil.
Also, even if we remove reasoning ability, there is still the matter of him being programmed to destroy. Animals, in general, don't wipe themselves out right away. If man were just an animal, he would have to be differ from all other animals in your proposed situation, in that he actively works towards his species destruction.
Honestly, why would people want to be all evil? Building communities and relationships both feel good and make long-term sense. You'd have to take both these elements away over and above the "Be good" manipulation God put on people in order for your scenario to be true.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes. That's pretty much the definition of "immature morality."
How do you determine who needs an external impetus to do good? Because let's be honest, there's always some external impetus to do good. Respect from the community, your offspring do well, or even you simply feel good about yourself for ethical or religious reasons.
Even the solid atheist with a committment to doing the right thing has an 'external impetus' to cling to that committment.
The discussion then becomes, "Theists who think that those with one less external impetus than they have to do the right thing won't do it are morally immature." Which is a pretty damn silly.
----------------
Mr. Squicky, if you cannot see how labeling people morally immature can be offensive...well, I just don't believe you can't. You're condescending to people with that point of view. Just admit it, and move on! Sheesh! On religious issues, everyone with a conviction that isn't, "Everyone will find God in their own way," (and sometimes even those people) are going to be condescending somewhat, simply as a factor of believing they're right on something extremely important and others are wrong.
-----------
quote:Thankfully, as has been explained by at least 5 people multiple times, this isn't actually addressing what I was saying.
Correct me if I'm wrong-it's been a long thread-but you said that theists who think people without God as a moral factor in their lives either won't be good, or will be less likely to, that those people are morally immature, correct?
If that is, in fact, what you're saying then I do think you're engaging in some mind-reading here, and thus your opinion is pretty invalid. Because you're not in a position to gauge the 'moral maturity' of people you've never met, much less an entire group of people. The issue os so subjective and so varying from person to person, even in a large group, that it's just impossible.
But let's suppose you're right, those people are morally immature, because they need the external prop to behave, and cannot imagine behaving without it (this is what you're hinting at, anyway). So what? You don't have a host of external props to do the right thing? Even if you're right, you're like a 12 year old telling a 9 year old that the 9 year old is so immature.
Unless you do think that you would still hold a committment to doing the right thing even if there were no external motives to do so.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Which is the same as my first paragraph above. In that scenario, god is the source of all good, all evil, and all everything. All the time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Thankfully, as has been explained by at least 5 people multiple times, this isn't actually addressing what I was saying.
It's just dogma that you keep repeating instead of addressing what was being said.
:shrug:
Needs to be said. I don't particularly care how you feel about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I can imagine a response somewhat along the lines of, "No, God still influenced them, they just weren't aware of it."
That's why the free will point is important to bring up. There are plenty of people who found goodness while specifically rejecting God.
---
Earlier, during the productive, respectful part of this conversation, Eowyn answered this with this, which I hope he (she?) has time to come back to:
quote:I didn't actually mean that God was directly playing around with your head. I meant that certain situations, certain sights, may be designed to show you something that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise, and this might influence your decisions down the road. (This can still be called manipulation, but since you're free to draw your own conclusions, it's hopefully not as objectionable)
C3PO rasies another valid point. God may be subtly influencing the effects of your actions, making your good actions better and dampening the effects of your bad decisions.
In the first part, God isn't really making me good at all, as far as I can see. It's kind of manipulative, but not really all that objectionable. However, God isn't actually necessary in any way given that way of looking at it. I have the potential for good in me completely removed from God. If God were absent from the equation, I could still be presented with stimuli (potentially the same stimuli that God would have presented me with anyway) and could chose to be good.
The second falls into much the same problem. If God isn't effecting the nature of my decision making, but instead altering the results in some way, I still contain within myself and absent God, the ability to decide and, in that case, an inclination to be good.
As I can see it, only if God is interfering with how I make decisions can it be said that I need God to be good. (Actually, that's not completely true. There is the possibility that there's a entity who is interfering with my decisions to make me be evil, which God is working to counteract. In that case, I'm most grateful if God to cancel the other out and leave me the heck alone with my base nature.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh,
quote:How do you determine who needs an external impetus to do good?
As has been said many, many times by now, by their own statements.
I don't see how it takes mind-reading to hear or read what people say.
---
Actually, maybe that is the key here. Are people suggesting that I lack the ability to hear and instead must access people's statements through some sort of telepathy?
If so, let me assure you that I've had my hearing checked and the appartatus was a machine, which would make it impossible for me to read it's mind.
The only psionic power I have is the ability to tell if a given Dunkin Donuts is going to be out of boston creme donughts. It doesn't sound like much, but it once saved the lives of over 2 people and one very cute kitten.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It has to do with the idea that he can know something about someone's character that is essentially unknowable.
quote:How do you determine who needs an external impetus to do good?
My answer to the second question addresses Scott's complaint in the first: we know only because they said so about themselves. If someone says "I need God to do good," they are saying about themselves that they need an external impetus to do good; if they say everyone needs God to do good, they are making that statement not only about themselves but also about everyone else. By concluding that they need an external impetus to do good, we are at worst taking their statement at face value.
If anything, the statement "we all need God to do good" is an order of magnitude more presumptive (and rude) than Squicky's observation, and yet Scott's spending all his time on the latter instead of the former.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, Tom, I don't think Scott has spent time on either. He's too busy spinning fantasies about my mutant mental abilities.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:The discussion then becomes, "Theists who think that those with one less external impetus than they have to do the right thing won't do it are morally immature." Which is a pretty damn silly.
Exactly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As has been said many, many times by now, by their own statements.
Seeing as how both Tom and Squicky hit the easily-answered portion of my statements, I'll reiterate my core question: how do you know that everyone doesn't need an external impetus? What, just because some people say they don't? Pft.
Even if you, Tom or Squicky, said that you needed no external push, I'd ask, "How do you know that?" You're guessing. You're hoping. I believe that it's important to want to do good without an external impetus, but until a world exists without that, whether anyone would is impossible to gauge.
Which brings us back to the point I was making before: isn't it a little silly to label people who acknowledge their external impetus as morally immature?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
All of this debate over whether or not God is manipulative or absent kind of resolves itself if you have an idea of God that isn't just external.
That potential for good? Some of us call that "God".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He's too busy spinning fantasies about my mutant mental abilities.
And writing them down. Idiots make wonderful fiction fodder.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:That potential for good? Some of us call that "God".
I call it the light of Christ, and it's in everyone. It's how it is possible to never pray, never feel the spirit, and still come to moral decisions. It's how just about everyone knows that killing is wrong. It's the spark of divinity in us.
Which is why I think that the whole "I'm rejecting God when I make my moral conclusions" is wrong - it's like saying you've decided to live without oxygen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But the discussion isn't so much using my definition of God. The definition of "God" that people are arguing about here, is the external, god-in-the-sky-with-superpowers that tends to be pretty common. I feel the need to point that out every so often, but it isn't really helpful.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I call it the light of Christ, and it's in everyone. It's how it is possible to never pray, never feel the spirit, and still come to moral decisions. It's how just about everyone knows that killing is wrong. It's the spark of divinity in us.
Which is why I think that the whole "I'm rejecting God when I make my moral conclusions" is wrong - it's like saying you've decided to live without oxygen.
All that is fine, as long as you are willing to grant the God violates people's free will.
---
boots's version is somewhat different, in that she is supposing an immanent versus a separate entity. However, in that case, there is no case for fallen mankind to start with.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No. You don't understand the light of Christ or free will.
Don't knee-jerk react to the idea and actually think about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: boots's version is somewhat different, in that she is supposing an immanent versus a separate entity. However, in that case, there is no case for fallen mankind to start with.
Exactly. I would say that the "fallen" stuff reflects that there are some difficulties being incarnate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No. You don't understand the light of Christ or free will.
From the long conversation I had about it with BlackBlade, I kind of think I do.
How about you explain where I (or he) got things wrong, though? Because, after all, if I don't understand it, how am I going to think about it correctly?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'll reiterate my core question: how do you know that everyone doesn't need an external impetus? What, just because some people say they don't?
Well, for one thing, I think it's slightly rude to say that someone does need an external impetus in reaction to their explicit claim that they don't. If Scott's talking about mind-reading, that's precisely the sort of mind-reading that I don't think is actually universally possible. (Note, by the way, that I've engaged in this sort of mind-reading before. But that doesn't mean that I don't concede it's rude.)
That said, I think everyone does "good" in each situation based on an internal code of conduct that varies with the situation. In some cases, I might do good because I want something; in other cases, I might do good because I don't want something else; in other cases, I might do good because I've rationalized that it's a valuable thing for its own sake.
I believe that many of these causes are "baser" than others. If I do something because someone is standing behind me with a stick, threatening to hit me if I don't, that is a less "evolved" decision than, say, doing it because I believe it's for the good of humanity. I may support, for example, the short-term result of tossing indigents into the cold because I oppose mandatory taxation. This doesn't mean my actions are actually empirically good, but it means that my motivations are more complex. The most "immature" morality is one that is directly concerned with personal punishment and reward; appeals to divine mandates generally fall into this category, but indeed "I'm doing this because I think it would make God happy, and I love God and want to make him happy" is slightly more sophisticated.
Keep in mind, again, that this has nothing to do with any empirical evaluation of a given morality (or set of actions) as "good" or "evil." It means merely that the underlying, stated motivation is one that is relatively unformed.
---------
By the way.... You have to understand that the phrase "I wouldn't be a good person if it wasn't for God" is especially scary from an atheist's perspective. Keep in mind, from our POV, that this is exactly like saying "if I were less delusional, I would be evil." For those of us who think that this particular delusion is on average a net negative, the fact that there are individuals who claim that they would be incapable of behaving morally without it represents a major stumbling block. It's like hearing someone say "if I weren't manic-depressive, I couldn't write this beautiful poetry." It's probably not true, but it might be true -- and what then? Is it worth the cost?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I'm certainly willing to answer your question, but I have to know what length to go into. This could be an interesting spur for a respectful discussion, but, especially given the behavior of other people in this thread, whom you seem to support, I have my doubts that this is what will result or what you are looking for, in which case, I'm sure you could see why I'm not all that willing to invest myself in the response.
Can you honestly say that you are looking for a respectful discussion here? If so, I look forward to giving you an extensive response.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Where did you define "goodness?"
Intolerance is not necessarily evil.
And tolerance isn't necessarily good.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You have to understand that the phrase "I wouldn't be a good person if it wasn't for God" is especially scary from an atheist's perspective.
Even scarier is the statement, "I don't believe it's possible to be a good person without God's influence."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How am I supposed to respond to that, Mr. Squicky? If I respond in the affirmative, I'm essentially coming to you and promising I'll behave. Which makes you boss. If I respond in the negative, you get your initial assumption affirmed.
I reject both choices, and I don't want to discuss this with you at all if you're going to set preconditions with yourself as the arbiter.
But clearly you want to be treated rudely if you're going to set yourself up so condescendingly, I'll oblige: it'll be a cold day in hell before I make concessions* to you just to speak with you at all.
*The concession being that you're up there, and I'm down here, asking to ascend the ivory tower.
-------------------
Tom,
quote:Well, for one thing, I think it's slightly rude to say that someone does need an external impetus in reaction to their explicit claim that they don't.
Well, sure it's rude to insist to someone that they are-or may be-wrong about something deeply important to them. If you want to have a discussion involving religious matters beyond, "I respect your right to believe etc. etc.," or, "God is great!" it's territory you're going to have to become comfortable with.
As for being rude in itself, I'm really not sure why you're making that clear to me: neither of us are famed for our respect for courtesy over all else.
quote:That said, I think everyone does "good" in each situation based on an internal code of conduct that varies with the situation. In some cases, I might do good because I want something; in other cases, I might do good because I don't want something else; in other cases, I might do good because I've rationalized that it's a valuable thing for its own sake.
I hesitate to call doing good because I want something* part of a code of conduct, simply because that's a very basic instinctive response: if one wants something, one does something to try and get it. It's not a 'code' any more than eating vegetables when you're a kid is a code: I want dessert. The last part of your statement is the one I'm most interested in, when you decide to do something good because it's intrinsically good. I'm trying to think of doing some good deed which offers no benefits to me or to society. The part where it's good for society is obvious. The part where it's good for me is hazier, because I like to feel like I'm a good person. That sort of self-respect can last awhile: for example, I still feel good about myself re: one house in particular I helped build with Habitat for Humanity, even though it's been years since that house was built.
Until and unless a test is devised in which a person is offered a choice between the self-helping bad (or even evil) choice, and the self-hurting good choice, without the resulting feeling of being a good person, no one can truly say they do good just because it's good. How can a person truthfully gauge that sort of thing? How can a person divide up the thing, so they know where they were doing it because it made them feel good ends, and where they were doing it because it's good begins?
I'm not suggesting that we should abandon doing good things, or that all good deeds are inherently selfish (but partially, that I AM suggesting), just that I doubt up front anyone who says, "I do good because it's good, for no external reasons." Or at least I doubt that they can be sure: I don't necessarily doubt that they mean it.
quote: The most "immature" morality is one that is directly concerned with personal punishment and reward; appeals to divine mandates generally fall into this category, but indeed "I'm doing this because I think it would make God happy, and I love God and want to make him happy" is slightly more sophisticated.
From another perspective, it could be argued that the personal punishment morality is the more honest morality. I won't say it's better, because obviously, what happens when the guy with the stick is gone?, but it could arguably be more honest.
I'm aware of the many reasons why the "I'd be worse without God" is especially worrisome to atheists. On another note, it's rare to see someone aside from KoM cop to the 'd' word with respect to religious people:) At least, around here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How am I supposed to respond to that, Mr. Squicky? If I respond in the affirmative, I'm essentially coming to you and promising I'll behave. Which makes you boss. If I respond in the negative, you get your initial assumption affirmed.
I reject both choices, and I don't want to discuss this with you at all if you're going to set preconditions with yourself as the arbiter.
But clearly you want to be treated rudely if you're going to set yourself up so condescendingly, I'll oblige: it'll be a cold day in hell before I make concessions* to you just to speak with you at all.
*The concession being that you're up there, and I'm down here, asking to ascend the ivory tower.
I'm not sure you understand what I asked. All I want to know is your intentions.
I was hoping you to respond with "Yeah, I am looking for a respectful discussion." I just had a fun, respectful conversation on this thread with boots and Eowyn. I like having these sorts of conversation and I'll put out a ot of effort for them.
It's not like I'm putting preconditions on wheter I'll talk to you or not. I'll talk to you either way. I just want to know what type of interaction you are looking for, so I can tailor my response and the effort I put into it accordingly.
I'm not asking you for anything other than what I've already done. I've stated, emphatically, that I'm looking for a respectful discussion here. I don't see how asking you to clarify what you are looking for is being condescending.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Squicky, your question casts yourself as the arbitrer of a respectful discussion. You are not the police, the arbitrer, or any king of authority in this case, moral or otherwise.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, it doesn't. I'm not arbiting anything. I'm just asking Rakeesh what he is looking for. If, using his definitions - which could be different from how I see things, he is looking for a respectful discussion, then yes would be a completely proper answer.
I don't expect people to use or accept my definitions over there own. I'm just asking how he, himself, by his own lights, is approaching this interaction.
---
Incidentally, you may have missed it, but I was looking for clarification above. Could you explain what you think I am missing about the Light of Christ and/or free will?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I understood precisely what you asked, and there was a concession involved. I have a hard time believing you're truly unaware of that. You have my answer, Mr. Squicky. I reject both choices and go with option 'c': I don't want to discuss the issue with you at all right now.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Long live Communication!
A.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I'm unsure of what this concession is. Are you losing something to admit how you are approaching a conversation?
The only way I could see that as being true is if you don't want people to know what your real answer is. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like you are giving anything up. What do you see that you would have conceded?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No, you asking him to humbly come to you and confess how he is approaching the conversation.
Asking that of anyone is a descicable bullying tactic that you use far too often when you're being proven wrong in a discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure if you've been following the thread, kat, but I've been getting jumped on, abused, and disrespected from many different people. I'm not sure where I'm in a place to do much bullying.
I don't care about humble. He can boast all he wants. I'm not interested in lowering him at all or elevating myself.
I just want to have a respectful conversation and would like to know if Rakeesh wants one as well. That would seem, to me, to put us on equal ground, no more, no less.
Maybe it would help to give concessions and humble myself. I promise not to refer to your answer at all once you give it. If I find myself of the opinion that you haven't really lived up to your stated intent, I'll keep that opinion completely to myself. Does that make it any better?
---
I'll point you again to my request for clarification above. Could you explain what you think I'm missing?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's pretty condescending to even question that.
And pretending that everything hinges on him answering you is a bullying tactic, regardless of what else happens.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, Squick, can I ask that the two of you not address each other, particularly in any attempt to describe your counterpart's behavior or motivations? It's really not productive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I wasn't aware I was describing her behavior or motivations Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whether or not one of you is being temporarily less abrasive than the other, I would ask that you both stop addressing each other. As a favor to me, if nothing else.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've got to wonder, Tom, what you've ever done that would make you think I'd feel obligated to give you a favor?
You want to deal with this, then deal with it where it starts. I don't initiate this crap and I don't appreciate you equating me with kat.
The point to step in when people started being disrespectful and nasty, not when things get unpleasant because I'm not willing to back down. If you ever spoke up then, I might be inclined to listen to you now.
As it is, I'm being bullied and insulted. I respond with a great deal more restraint and respect for the rules of Hatrack than the people attacking me. If this behavior only becomes a problem for you when my not backing down makes things unpleasant, I don't think you've got the right to ask me anything.
---
edit: The somewhat amusing thing is that I was done with kat on this particular issue already.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Whether or not one of you is being temporarily less abrasive than the other, I would ask that you both stop addressing each other. As a favor to me, if nothing else.
That would be lovely.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Just a random question, Squicky: do you treat people in real life the same way as you treat people on Hatrack?
I'm not setting you up for anything; just curious. I understand if you don't want to answer.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Sorry, Tom and Porter, ask a different favor. I'll respond as I find appropriate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The point to step in when people started being disrespectful and nasty, not when things get unpleasant because I'm not willing to back down. If you ever spoke up then, I might be inclined to listen to you now.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Honestly, Scott, I don't see why you're so offended by what Squicky's saying here. He's not saying he's a mind-reader. He's saying that, by their own admission, people who believe they need God to be moral are less ethically mature than people who don't.
This counts as at least a step, no? Unless you actually want him to issue a warning to every single person that you feel has wronged you, which would be somewhat more of a *job* than it would be recreational forum posting.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
JT, Do you think people in real life treat me people on Hatrack treat me?
In general, probably not. I'm not concerned with investing my personality here, whereas you can't really go long outside of a professional setting in real life without doing that.
I don't come here to be liked or for interpersonal interaction and I can understand why some people don't particularly like me here. I don't think them not liking me means that it should be okay to be treated unfairly.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Squick, I'll talk with you.
From what I gather, you believe in libertarian free will (at least in a theological sense). I'm reasonably sympathetic to that; I think Mormonism's rejection of the creation ex nihilo of humanity lends it a great deal of credence. Many Mormon thinkers have spent a great deal of time emphasizing the importance of unrestrained human choice to what Mormonism understands as salvation. Blake Ostler, an analytic Mormon philosopher, wrote a whole book about it.
In any case, I, personally, lean toward your position on free will - I believe that theological libertarian free will is essential if our own lives are to have any meaning. However, I don't think that the existence of God is necessarily incompatible with that.
Traditional doctrine of the Fall makes libertarian free will difficult for traditional Christianity. Most Protestants teach that the Fall corrupted our original human nature utterly; Catholics like Aquinas, on the other hand, use phrases like "damaged but not destroyed." In any case, all of these faiths teach that humans need the grace of God to regain the uncorrupted ability to choose that God intended for us to have. For strict Calvinists and some Catholics this goes hand in hand with absolute predestination.
However, it does not have to. There's an entire school of thought called compatibilism that argues that some form of determinism - be it divine intervention or the biology of our minds - are reconcilable with free will. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both materialist compatibilists; Augustine was a theological compatibilist. That is, he believed God's grace enabled humans to do what they would do but were unable to do because of their fallen natures. This grace is always already present, saving us from our corruption. Wesleyans take the same tack. This, is, I think, a form of free will; it's not libertarian free will, but it's incorrect to accuse Methodists of determinism, or not believing in free will. Indeed, their entire theology is predicated on a rejection of predestination (which is not necessarily the same thing as
Now, back to Mormons. The concept of 'the light of Christ' is nebulous in Mormon theology. It's unclear whether it's inherently a part of our uncreated natures, or whether it's a version of Methodist prevenient grace, always already granted by God. If the former, it's compatible with libertarian free will. Personally, I find this the more convincing interpretation because I don't believe the fall corrupted human nature, and therefore I don't think that God is the necessary source of all goodness in the world. If the latter, however, is the correct interpretation (which I think most Mormons accept), then it makes Mormons compatibilists. So, I think Kat and BB are talking about free will in the latter, compatibilist sense.
Thus, it seems to me you two are talking past each other, I think, and accusing each other of not understanding whatever is missing the point.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think you're treated particularly poorly here. I think you are treated poorly by some people, but I can't say I don't see why they do it.
I think you treat people here worse than you do your real life acquaintances and I think they respond in kind.
I don't understand what you mean when you say you 'don't come here for interpersonal interaction'. What else does Hatrack have to offer?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This counts as at least a step, no?
I don't see that as one, no.
I'm not worried about my ideas or statements standing on their own. Tom has never had a problem stepping in when he agrees with the ideas of what I'm saying. We didn't get here because Scott disagreed with what I was saying, even in his eyes closed, dogmatic way.
What I would love is to never have to ask people to keep a civil tone. I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I would love is to never have to ask people to keep a civil tone. I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.
Well, I've asked you not to accuse me of being dishonest, not speaking openly, and playing games, and you haven't been able to do that. Maybe we'll both get what we want for Christmas.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
"I'd be worse without God."
As stated I can see the point people are making with respect to atheists and their feelings on the matter.
But I question, from a practical perspective, is it really God you can't do without, or is it the spiritual and moral guidance that faith in God and his religious philosophy brings you?
If it is these secondary benefits that you really can't do without, then, of course, we must realize that atheists and other people can draw that same moral guidance and comfort, and draw on a equally moral yet non-religious philosophy and accomplish the same thing.
I don't necessarily derive benefit for the mere existence of God. But faith in the existence of God is accompanied by many secondary aspects. I am given a moral code to live by, a foundation for what is right and wrong, a moral and spiritual philosophy to guide myself through life. In short, faith in the existence of God gives me a moral foundation to build my life on.
People who are atheist or people who believe in non-God religions also have valid alternate sources of the same guidance and philosophy that I derive from Christian religion.
Personally, while I identify as a Christian, I am somewhat of a universalist. I draw my spiritual guidance from Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian philosophies, or where ever else I might find truth.
I see the Church and Christian religion on many levels. Some of those levels are true and pure. But some of those levels are hopelessly corrupt. There is a bureaucratic element of all religions that is certainly the most corrupt. It is the element of religion that is hungry for power and greedy for wealth, and is responsible for turning more and more people away from religion in general.
Despite those gross and obscene aspects of religion, there are other aspects that are positive and good, and, whether God is real or not, still provide positive comfort and guidance to our lives. And, that's not such a bad thing.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What I would love is to never have to ask people to keep a civil tone. I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.
Since it's a religious thread, I'll go ahead and say , "You reap what you sow."
I perceive that you place yourself above the community and the individuals in the community (as evidenced by you continuing to think it's necessary that you be the one who demand people stay 'civil'). Why would anyone stick up for you when it's clear you think we're all beneath you?
When I agree with you, I say so. When I don't, I say so. But I'm not sticking up for you because, frankly, I think you've earned most of the bad treatment you get by refusing to be an full member of the community.
It's like you're giving Hatrack a really extended Turing test before deciding to interact with us as equals. I mean, I don't like the identity you've created here. But I can see that that's not your real self, because someone as smart as you has to have learned how to participate in polite society. I can also see that I probably would like the real you (taking your views and mixing them into a real personality). Hypothetically speaking, anyway. I think you're too egotistical to ever admit that I'm right about this, so I doubt very seriously we'll ever find out for sure.
Also, I realize I phrased this post as if I'm speaking for the majority. That's probably not the case, and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say they disagree with what I've written here.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot.
At that point things were such a mess that I didn't see it as a major increase in nastiness.
I do agree that some people responded with unnecessary nastiness to what they perceived to be a rude comment by yourself. I think the drive to berate you for your comment was kind of ridiculous and that a more reasoned objection would have produced much more effective dialog, but having responded in a similar way to Ron recently on another thread, I don't feel I'm in a place to speak up beyond making a couple more-or-less neutral comments.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I perceive that you place yourself above the community and the individuals in the community (as evidenced by you continuing to think it's necessary that you be the one who demand people stay 'civil'). Why would anyone stick up for you when it's clear you think we're all beneath you?
I think he's just saying that he's willing to discuss these topics but that he's finding it difficult to do so because the people he's trying to talk to are being abrasive, sarcastic, and otherwise, well, uncivil. It's no different than when someone is yelling at you for something and you say "please stop yelling at me so we can discuss this."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
In your scenario and in Squicky's, he's set up as the voice of reason and the moral authority. Both are wrong - he is neither.
Hmm...
It seems that if someone wants a conversation about the topic and not a meta-conversation about the debaters, MattB's post is the one to respond to.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
MattP, there's a lot more going on here than what you see in this thread. No offense, but it's more like when your girlfriend screams at you for not taking the dishes out of the dishwasher. It's not really about the dishes.
quote:It seems that if someone wants a conversation about the topic and not a meta-conversation about the debaters, MattB's post is the one to respond to.
Agreed.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Sorry I've been away from the 'rack for a couple days. Time-out for review.
Ok, I've reviewed, as much as my wandering and oft-interrupted attention would allow. Frankly, although I can certainly see that some people are upset about things, it could be argued that nobody actually broke the letter of the TOS. I think there have been some rather rude and inconsiderate and intentionally offensive things implied, but I could be inaccurately inferring. I'm sorta surprised and sorta not surprised at how often people rely on "this is what I actually said" versus "this is what you're claiming I said," then react so negatively to what another didn't actually say.
Anyway, I feel like I should say something before unlocking it, so here goes. Be excellent to each other. At least try to let bygones be bygones. That's not a requirement, but rather a suggestion. I think it'd help.
--PJ
[ December 14, 2007, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)