Maryland representatives will be voting on this soon. It stands a good chance of passing. The Republican minority leader actually stepped down because he is in support of it.
The best part is that it addresses the only real complaint religious conservatives have. It states very clearly that religious organizations cannot be made to marry anyone they don't want to.
It is simply beautiful. Even though the constitution protects this right of religious organizations anyways, it spells it out in a great compromise.
Yes, there are other arugments those opposed make. I can't really think of any legitimate ones off the top of my head. But this pretty much confronts the major argument that sways the moderates.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Link please?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
What about churches who refuse to marry interracial couples? marriage ceremonies are clearly a service that they provide and are paid for, to refuse service on grounds of race is discrimination.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Churches already don't have to marry people they don't want to marry. They don't have to, for example, marry non-members or people who haven't gone through whatever marriage training they require.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Maybe, but they already won't marry gay couples, right? We're well past the issue of churches discriminating.
I think it's fine that churches are allowed to discriminate all the live-long day as long as 1. marriage is an option without discrimination provided to all consenting adults via the state, and 2. churches may not avail themselves of public money or special immunities, nor involve or imbed themselves in publicly funded institutions.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: What about churches who refuse to marry interracial couples? marriage ceremonies are clearly a service that they provide and are paid for, to refuse service on grounds of race is discrimination.
I will try to find an example, I remember a case of a church being granted the right to deny interracial couples.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:to refuse service on grounds of race is discrimination.
It's also discrimination to refuse service on grounds of religion, but that's obviously not a problem - no religion is going to be forced to marry non-members if its against their policy to do so. Churches have a lot of leeway when it comes to discrimination.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Celebrating a marriage ceremony is not really a service; it is a Sacrament. Churches regularly get to choose who can receive Sacraments.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Yes. What kmbboots said.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Most Seventh-day Adventist pastors have never been willing to marry a church member to a non-member. People can always get married elsewhere. We do offer our churches free of charge for weddings of members. Often we offer church school gymnasiums free of charge for receptions, with volunteer help. Only to members. That is a reasonable benefit and privilege of church membership.
The problem is actually not requiring churches to marry same-sex couples. Nothing forces them to now. The real and only problem Christians have is being required to call same-sex unions "marriage." Marriage is to us a Biblical term, ordained by the Creator. Humans do not have the authority to overrule the Creator. But that is what is attempted when same-sex unions are legally declared to be "marriage." This is a direct defiance of the authority of the Creator, and will force the withdrawal of divine protection from America in much larger measure than we have seen already, because of the sins already tolerated by society.
Whatever inequities may be involved concerning health insurance coverage, permission to visit loved ones in the hospital, etc., can be remedied by law without having to call the union "marriage."
What this all really amounts to is an attempt by "gays" to require all religous people to approve of their lifestyle. This is a violation of the religious liberty of everyone who believes the Bible. We can never, no matter what, approve of something that the Bible clearly teaches is sin. Certainly not the worst sin, but sin nonetheless.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This is a direct defiance of the authority of the Creator, and will force the withdrawal of divine protection from America in much larger measure than we have seen already, because of the sins already tolerated by society.
You're one of those "Dover shall suffer, for they have forsaken god's love" types, huh.
quote:What this all really amounts to is an attempt by "gays" to require all religous people to approve of their lifestyle. This is a violation of the religious liberty of everyone who believes the Bible.
The absolute worst (best?) part of this is that you've taken an issue which is really a violation of the liberty of homosexuals, and tried to make the other half out to be the ultimate victims of 'violations of their liberty.' Over a word. No. You do not have to approve of their lifestyle. You just don't get to dictate absolutely what permissible ways exist that secular institutions get to use the word "marriage." They can do that just fine on their own, thanks.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem with the fight over marriage is that while marriage may mean a sacrament and God and stuff to YOU, to the government it is a contract made between two people giving them specific rights. The argument is over how a secular government is defining the term, not how God does, or any specific religion or person. So, it is great that a marriage means whatever it does to you, but from the government's viewpoint that shouldn't be relevent to the discussion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This is a direct defiance of the authority of the Creator, and will force the withdrawal of divine protection from America in much larger measure than we have seen already, because of the sins already tolerated by society.
I'm curious why you think this, even assuming a religious perspective like yours. How do you know America has been the beneficiary of divine protection in the first place? God doesn't generally make a habit of rewarding the righteous and punishing the sinful in the mortal world. (Think of Job and all the good believers who die from cancer at a young age.)
And why the collective punishment? For example, suppose a hurricane strikes Maryland as a result of their passing this law. Isn't that unfair to the good Christians who live there, that they be punished along with Maryland's gay population? Wouldn't it be better to inflict the individual sinners with boils or something, rather than indiscriminately punish them along with their innocent countrymen?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, you might be surprised when you one day may discover how all the multitudes on an entire street were spared from destruction because of the presence of a mere handful of faithful people.
There are many ways where natural disasters are clearly increasing in severity and frequency, despite what a few biased naysayers try to claim. But let me just point out the fact about meteoroid bombardment of the earth. The late Eugene Shoemaker of the U.S. Geological Survey (and also of Shoemaker-Levy fame) stated in print one time that a meteroid (that's what astrophysicists call them) with sufficient impact power to equal or exceed the power of the Hiroshima atom bomb, strikes the earth every single year. But they fall into the ocean (4/5 of the earth's surface), or else impact in uninhabited wilderness areas (remember the Tunguska blast in Siberia), or for some inexplicable reason detonate in the high reaches of the atmosphere and never reach the surface. Should one of these impacters strike a major city, and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions would perish. I will declare to you flatly that most of these meteorioids are turned aside or detonated high in the atmosphere by angels of God. These angels dread what they know is coming--the day when they are told that they must stand down. But the Creator cannot in justice continue to defend those who DIRECTLY defy His authority, opposing their official human authority against it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A God who would lift such protection from His children because they stopped agreeing with Him would be as evil as a parent who turned their child out into a hailstorm for not sharing their politics.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer, you might be surprised when you one day may discover how all the multitudes on an entire street were spared from destruction because of the presence of a mere handful of faithful people.
OK. Why does he save the faithful from meteors, but not illness?
quote:A God who would lift such protection from His children because they stopped agreeing with Him would be as evil as a parent who turned their child out into a hailstorm for not sharing their politics.
That's not even what's happening. It's just that a slightly larger number go against his will. Presumably there will still be some faithful people in Baltimore, even after this law gets past. So God's going to let a meteor hit Baltimore and kill thousands of true believers, just because the ones who've turned against God outnumber the faithful and voted them down?
One would think that, if God were of a mind to save the mortal lives of those who have faith (which obviously he isn't, or else he'd save them from cancer and not just meteors), he would protect them from meteors regardless of how many practicing homosexuals lived in the same city.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
For example, I see you live in Troy. Let's say a meteor was descending upon the greater Detroit area. God decides that because I, a faithless sinner, and so many others like me live in southeastern Michigan, he will withhold his protection and allow the meteor to strike, even though you and your family will die as a result. Would that be fair?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ron, out of curiosity: How would you feel if all references to marriage were taken out of American law and replaced by a strictly legal institution? Called... whatever, it doesn't matter. Civil unions. And straights and gays and mens and womens and everybody could enter into them as they saw fit, but the government didn't call any of them marriages?
Then your church could still call what they perform marriages. As could every other church, and none of them would have to agree, and the government wouldn't specifically take sides and define one church as correct and another as incorrect.
How does that sound to you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: What about churches who refuse to marry interracial couples? marriage ceremonies are clearly a service that they provide and are paid for, to refuse service on grounds of race is discrimination.
Race discrimination is not strictly illegal in a private business.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: What about churches who refuse to marry interracial couples? marriage ceremonies are clearly a service that they provide and are paid for, to refuse service on grounds of race is discrimination.
I've never seen a "marriage" actually sold as a service. Usually the marriage is "given" and the couple, in turn, gives a donation (sometimes a mandatory donation) back to the church.
And LIGHT, you're going to get back into the realm of whether or not the U.S. is, or was ever intended to be, a "democracy". I think it's pretty clear that we have never allowed a "majority rule" in every aspect of our lives. We have a constitution and a court system to protect outcasts from being stoned just for being different. This is much the same. You can feel that homosexual behavior is wrong, and that's your opinion (which you are allowed to have), but you can't decide to infringe on their rights because of your opinion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I find the idea that God would stop ordering his angels to bat away meteors if Ron calls a same-sex union a "marriage" to be hysterically amusing.
quote:What matters the most to me is, "What does God say? What should I do about that?"
And that's precisely why religious beliefs are dangerous. Because, let's face it, you don't actually know the answer to that question, but you're determined as all heck to act like you do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:or for some inexplicable reason detonate in the high reaches of the atmosphere and never reach the surface.
atmospheric impact friction is inexplicable now?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: You can throw civil rights arguments at me, and you can throw libel and slander at me. Yet I will vote according to my conscience anyhow.
Then you clearly do not believe in what America was founded to be. That's fine- not everybody does. Just don't confuse what you've got for patriotism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Actually, if such a thing is on the ballot, I have every right to vote according to my conscience. So I choose to do so.
You've got the power, but not the right. *shrug* I'm certainly not going to persuade you, but what you have in this country is the protected civil right to vote your conscience. That doesn't make whatever is in your conscience right when put to a ballot. That's a pretty flawed argument. We've just, as a society, realized that the alternatives to not protecting that right are worse.
quote:
I find it funny that you continue to refer to LGBT marriage as a "right". Certainly, it is their right to live their lives with that orientation. They can shack up like just about everyone else out there. But don't try to force me to accept some sort of gross perversion of the meaning of marriage with this argument of "rights". It is well within my "rights" to disagree heavily with that choice of lifestyle and to curb its impact on my life and the community I live in as much as I can. It is my right to reject and fight their lifestyle's influence in my life--an influence that I find profoundly sinful. Sorry.
Well, let's be clear on a few things here. You say they have the right to live their lives with such orientations, all well and good, and that they can shack up if they like and you won't try and stop them. But that's at odds with some other things you say, especially when you start talking about 'impact on the community and life'.
Would you really support a government and social policy of complete disinterest in the lives of two homosexuals who lived in your neighborhood, 'shacked up' and calling themselves married, for all of their lives, obviously living sexually active cohabiting lives together? How would that be consistent with barring them from marriage?
It simply wouldn't, that's how. Because the impact on the community - not that it's their business in the slightest - would be much the same. Furthermore, you're tolerating gross sinfulness already, and you can help it. Marriage as a sacred, religious institution in this country - at least as far as the government is concerned - is a complete laughingstock, as you must be aware if you have a passing acquaintance with statistics on the subject.
Thus, given that we're a secular nation, why is it acceptable to tolerate this gross sinfulness but not that gross sinfulness? Bearing in mind that 'I get to vote my conscience' isn't an acceptable answer. Well, it is, but only if you're going to use it to hide behind, anyway.
quote:As in the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. It is possible, you know.
Sure, it's possible. It's not a very active force motivating major political groups in opposition to legalized SSM in this country, though, no matter how desperately they try to claim it. Or rather it's not the kind of rhetoric that has traditionally been conjured up when it's time to scare votes, so yes, while it's possible, we're not discussing the possible here. Possibly I may win the lottery tomorrow.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:an obviously gross and disgusting thing
Pro-tip: If there is broad disagreement on the subject then it is, by definition, not obvious.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Actually, if such a thing is on the ballot, I have every right to vote according to my conscience. So I choose to do so."
Does one have every right to vote Christianity illegal, if that is what the dictates of their conscience says? I'd say no: Because America is about protecting minorities (which would include Christianity if it ever became one here) as much as about minority rule. That's simply what America is about. And I'd prefer to do to others what I would want done to me. You know, like a certain man you might know once claimed was rather important.
"I find it funny that you continue to refer to LGBT marriage as a "right". Certainly, it is their right to live their lives with that orientation. They can shack up like just about everyone else out there. But don't try to force me to accept some sort of gross perversion of the meaning of marriage with this argument of "rights"."
Then don't accept it as something God recognizes. If you don't care about what they actually do, isn't it better to let them have the same benefits? Do unto others...
"It is well within my "rights" to disagree heavily with that choice of lifestyle and to curb its impact on my life and the community I live in as much as I can."
What impact? Them being allowed to live freely, without people making them go somewhere else? How would you feel, if you lived in a Muslim country and heard people saying the same about Christians? Do unto others...
"It is my right to reject and fight their lifestyle's influence in my life--an influence that I find profoundly sinful. Sorry."
The same as it's the right of Muslims or the Chinese government to reject and fight your lifestyle's influence on their lives? Or should your own fellow believers in China be allowed to practice their beliefs freely? Do unto others...
"By the way, I should clarify that I don't despise gay people."
Actions speak louder than words.
"All of us are children of God, and deserve the love of God--but I will never tolerate gross sinfulness if I can help it."
So what are you doing to be intolerant of adulterers, gamblers, bankers (usurers, remember!), people who eat pork and shellfish(btw, which rules in the Bible are to be followed, and which aren't again? People seem to disagree), people who practice non-Christian religions like Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, as well? As long as you're being intolerant, why stop at just gays? I mean, why pick on people who feel love towards each other, instead of people who believe in spirits and pagan gods?
"As in the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. It is possible, you know. Does that still count as homophobic?"
No, not precisely. But it's used as such a shield, and you aren't actually acting like you are. You'd do to them what you wouldn't want done to you. Where's the love of the sinner in that?
"I thought that applied to people, not to the lifestyle. If that's used to refer to LGBT people, then I'd deny it. If it's used to refer to the lifestyle, then yes, I am a proud homophobe and will be one until the day I die."
Do unto others as you would have done to you. If you were unlucky enough to be born with a preference for the same sex, would you want to be treated as a pariah, whose activities are to be opposed? When all you're doing is living your own life, and loving someone you're actually attracted to?
Because you didn't choose to be straight, anymore than I did. What did they ever do to you? Kill your dog? How are they hurting you? How is them getting married and living happy lives hurting yours? How is them not being told that their entire lives are wrong, right? Would it be right for you to be told that being attracted to people of the opposite sex is wrong? Would it be right to be forced to abstain, or enter into homosexual pairings? How is it any less right to look down on others for feelings you had no more control of in your case than they do?
Where is your humanity?
"Or maybe my wording earlier was misconstrued. I apologize if that's the case. I hope it didn't sound like I'm fine with unmarried cohabitation, because I'm quite honestly not okay with it."
Dang, what do you want of them? If you don't even want them living together, what DO you want? Celibacy? That's not a straw-man, as I'm not going to make an argument based on that idea, instead I'm asking: Is that what you want? If it is, let me be clear: If you were unable to marry the person you loved, or in fact anyone you would even possibly be attracted to, any person of the other sex, for example, and then told it's wrong for you even to live with them, that you couldn't have that basic human companionship we all crave, how would you feel?
Do unto others as you would have done to you.
[ January 31, 2011, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"To what extent do we tolerate--let alone encourage--immorality?"
It is not our right to force others to live as we would. Because there's almost certainly a large majority who lives differently than us, and would try to force us to live differently. What do you think the Thirty Years' War was about? That's what happens when you decide you cannot tolerate the "immorality" of the "so-obviously wrong" other people.
Why do you think so many people came to America in the first place? To escape that sort of a mindset, and to be able to live in peace.
Posted by Dan971 (Member # 12492) on :
I have a question/observation, sparked by LIGHT, which may be slightly peripheral to this thread.
It seems to me that a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage / gays in the military / etc. describe homosexuality as a lifestyle.
I'm wondering if LIGHT, or anyone else, would be willing to elaborate on what you mean by this ?
Because the vibe that I often get (apologies if I'm totally off-base and addressing an opinion that doesn't really exist) is that people who describe homosexuality as a lifestyle are imagining something quite hedonistic, a whirl of parties and casual sex. There certainly are gays who live like this, but then there are also straights who live like this. Most gay people I know are considerably more 'boring' than this - for example, I know a gay couple who are a university administrator and an academic. They live in domestic bliss in a small house, with a cat, and their main hobbies are playing board games, reading, and going to the theatre.
My point I suppose is that I imagine that people who hold strong views against homosexuality are unlikely to get to know many gay people. Which in turn makes it easier to hold a simplified picture in your head of what gay people are like, which in turn makes it easier to hold strong views against homosexuality.
I recognise that people who are anti-homosexuality typically believe there is biblical support for their views; I suppose one question I'm throwing out there is whether, if they were more exposed to gay people, and found them to be as much of a mixed bag as the rest of us, this might cause them to reprioritise homosexuality on the scale of magnitude of sin ?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Two new members posting lengthy posts on a controversial topic? Fascinating.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Would you please explain to me in your own words, in understandable and explicit form, exactly what you thought America was founded to be? If you defend a straw man of your own devising, it'd be pretty easy to give a spin on America of whatever sort you'd like. Please, tell me what the professional opinion is.
I'll tell you the honest truth. I'm not an expert in this sort of thing. I am not a lawyer, nor a politician, nor a student of history or whatever. But I think I have a clue, and I think that an awful lot of people have become distracted from "what America was founded to be" by a crumbling of the public morality, etc.
Of course, I could be wildly wrong, and I'm interested in finding out what I'm wrong on.
Your statements give me reason to believe that you support a non-secular Christian theocracy, based upon popular acclamation of religious leadership. If that is not the case, then your statements are particularly odd. Please, I am not attempting to construct a straw man, I am trying to reach the natural extension of the statement you made, which is that you would vote according to your religious beliefs, imposing your morality as law, rather than voting according to the principles of secular democracy, which demand that you make a recognizable distinction between moral and civil law. You make no such distinction in practice.
The reason that you are wrong is quite simply. America and its government were set up with the aim of encouraging a distinction between moral and civil law. They did this both to encourage religious freedom by disentangling government from the practices of religion (a practice responsible for much hardship in the past), and to preserve the functioning of a democracy out of the hands of tyrants or any specifically inherited power base- things that religions tend to create. So, if you vote your religious conscience rather than your civic conscience, or if you refuse to distinguish between "what is right," and what is *a* right, and disregard the careful, long, drawn out process of constitutional law and precedent simply because it is contrary to your religious beliefs, then you support rule by acclamation of religion, and you don't really support the democracy that America was founded on. Because it's a democracy, but it is a democracy with specific and careful limitations in place to balance the rights of individuals against such incursions of moral law in civil matters. You may vote, and you may believe that this is all that is required to be "democratic," but you wrong in this belief.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT:
quote:America and its government were set up with the aim of encouraging a distinction between moral and civil law.
To quote a wise man, "I do not believe in a double standard of morality." I think that sums it up well enough. Or not--more on that below.
Your lack of concern with this is troubling.
Having read the rest of your post, I conclude that I think you are probably a hateful, vile sort of person. And I don't want to argue with you at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
LIGHT,
quote:
Not only am I absolutely disgusted with the whole LGBT movement going on in our country right now, but the whole "shacking up" deal is absolutely disgraceful. It's sickening, really. Do you honestly think, from where I seem to be coming from, that I'd approve of that sort of thing? Really? Come on--I've seen you use some good reasoning before on here, and this falls below that standard.
Light, I'm not interested in your approval of my reasoning. Anyway, it was obvious that you wouldn't approve of government/social disinterest in a couple of homosexuals shacking up for all their lives, and it's even more obvious now. Which was my point in the first place. I simply don't trust that someone who can't even make it through an online discussion about the topic without using words like 'disgusting' and 'sickening' really does 'love the sinner', for example, much less that they would really (if left to their own devices) leave the disgusting, sickening parties alone.
quote:I said that they can. I didn't say that they should. I think that "shacking up" is a disgrace to our society. The question is, if you paint such a pretty picture of myself tolerating that sort of a government when it is an obviously gross and disgusting thing, why do you support it? To what extent to we tolerate--let alone encourage--immorality? Do you want that sort of society? You call that sort of sanctity of marriage a laughingstock. Are you one of the ones laughing? Don't use ugly pictures of our society against me if you know at heart that that sort of society is wrong. Unless, of course, it would be better to live in Sodom because it would be worse than it would to not let ourselves stoop that far and thus limit our right to destroy ourselves. Really? Is that really what you think?
I don't just paint a picture of yourself tolerating that sort of thing, it's a matter of factual record. You do tolerate things which are, by your own admission now, disgraceful, sickening behavior, yet you don't want the force of law banning them...unless homosexuals are involved.
We're not supposed to do that in this country. You know, specifically target a minority group for discrimination just because we don't like them for some pre-existing reason that cannot be proven to have justification? (Note: reasons referencing 'Sodom' don't count, because you have to believe in those reasons first before they're persuasive.)
Also, I didn't call marriage a laughingstock. You don't know what my personal opinion on that institution is. I merely correctly identified what our government's stance is on the sanctity of marriage, and to suggest that the US government views it as sacred is ridiculous.
quote:Don't use ugly pictures of our society against me if you know at heart that that sort of society is wrong. Unless, of course, it would be better to live in Sodom because it would be worse than it would to not let ourselves stoop that far and thus limit our right to destroy ourselves.
Yes, clearly I must go along with using your Biblical references here in this very secular discussion. Wait...
quote:Where is yours? I find homosexual ideals quite inhumane. There is nothing about the lifestyle that contributes to humanity's benefit. It is an utterly selfish, self-centered lifestyle that does nothing except open society's doors to greater and greater immorality.
Nonsense. The first nonsense is the notion that homosexuality can actually have ideals, anymore than heterosexuality or bisexuality. It's a sexual preference, not a political belief system! Second, there's nothing inherently in heterosexuality that contributes to humanity either-everything depends on the specific people involved as well, so once again your caricature fails.
quote:That's a good concern. It seems to start off on the basis that you are locked into that sort of orientation for the rest of your life, that you have no choice about it, and that you're essentially doomed to a life of misery....
And here's some more nonsense: homosexuality =/ life of misery. Your responses to these little problems wherein you attempt to use religious reasoning to bludgeon your way through a secular argument are, by the way, pretty important to determining whether or not I at least am gonna keep talking about this with you. Speaking strictly for myself, I've got no interest in listening to thinly-veiled hellfire talk.
[ January 31, 2011, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know perfectly well that I am in the right, and what you don't know is how I know...
No, I'm afraid not. You don't get to authoritatively claim that you know the mind of God. You get to believe that you do, but I get to believe you're very, very wrong, and either deluded or lying.
quote:I find homosexual ideals quite inhumane. There is nothing about the lifestyle that contributes to humanity's benefit. It is an utterly selfish, self-centered lifestyle that does nothing except open society's doors to greater and greater immorality.
But, to clarify, you're cool with those sinning gay people in general, right? Even though their same-sexing "ideals" are inhumane, and nothing about their utterly selfish lifestyle contributes to humanity's benefit?
How do they feel about you? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: It's sad when someone standing up for their beliefs yields that kind of response. I'm really not a hateful person--unless you're talking about sin.
It is sad that your beliefs are so vile and twisted. Sad all around.
quote:I hope I haven't been too offensive--I've been known to put things a little bit bluntly.
You are deluding yourself if you think that your beliefs, properly iterated in nice language, would come off to me as anything but vile and hateful.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I find the idea that God would stop ordering his angels to bat away meteors if Ron calls a same-sex union a "marriage" to be hysterically amusing.
On the plus side, if he's right, we should be able to control disasters with the strategic placement of non-Christians around the world.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My God... I think you may be onto something there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It does seem kind of peculiar, yet doesn't read like someone else's posting style.
Leaving God and religion completely out of it, my concern about gay marriage is far more simple. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage. If not aren't you discriminating against people that have other types of alternative lifestyles?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The best part is that it addresses the only real complaint religious conservatives have. It states very clearly that religious organizations cannot be made to marry anyone they don't want to.
The biggest real complaint from religious conservatives is that marriage is defined as between a man and woman which would make it erroneous to call anything else a marriage. I don't think those religious conservatives would consider that complaint to be resolved by this bill.
The complaint about being forced to marry people is a secondary complaint, and I suspect most reasonable people would realize that there's not much liklihood that churches would be forced to marry gay couples if they don't believe in that.
Posted by Dan971 (Member # 12492) on :
Light, would you mind telling me why you think homosexuality is 'an utterly selfish, self-centred lifestyle' ? Going back to my earlier point, there are certainly some utterly selfish, self-centred gays, but there are also some utterly selfish, self-centred straights. My gay friends collected parcels from the post office for me when I was away on holiday, and they're planning on adopting/having a child at some point in the future. They don't seem particularly self-centred to me. For me the disconnect is that I don't think there's such a thing as a 'homosexual lifestyle' - homosexuals live as diverse a range of 'lifestyles' as everyone else.
Rakeesh, when Light says
quote:That's a good concern. It seems to start off on the basis that you are locked into that sort of orientation for the rest of your life, that you have no choice about it, and that you're essentially doomed to a life of misery....
and you reply
quote:And here's some more nonsense: homosexuality =/ life of misery.
I think there's a misunderstanding. Light's saying that your point of view is that homosexuals, denied the right to marry and love who they want, are doomed to a life of misery because of it, and he's saying he doesn't believe that's the case, because if they try hard enough they can change their sexual orientation, and then have fulfilling relationships with members of the opposite sex.
I don't believe he is correct, and further I don't think there's any reason why gays should have to do this, even if they could, but it seemed worth clarifying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, "LIGHT", I know* that you are wrong and that your beliefs are contrary to God's will. Far more contrary than a loving relationship between two men or two women ever could be. Since we do have the protection of separation of church and state, however, you are allowed your immoral, ungodly beliefs as long as you don't inflict them on others.
And I will pray for the patience to refrain from hoping you are hit by a meteor.
*What you don't know is how I know.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It does seem kind of peculiar, yet doesn't read like someone else's posting style.
Leaving God and religion completely out of it, my concern about gay marriage is far more simple. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage. If not aren't you discriminating against people that have other types of alternative lifestyles?
Geraine, no you don't. You don't, for instance, have to allow anything that is non-consensual. So don't bother trotting out that tired marrying a horse example.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It does seem kind of peculiar, yet doesn't read like someone else's posting style.
Leaving God and religion completely out of it, my concern about gay marriage is far more simple. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage. If not aren't you discriminating against people that have other types of alternative lifestyles?
I recall answering this concern for you in some detail the last time you raised it. You ignored me, clearly. I have no interest in batting the same ball of yarn again. You are quickly running out of credit with me, and I suspect many others here, by playing that particular game. It doesn´t´make you look very honest.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage.
This is only true if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage is "any declaration of marriage between any combination of things should be valid." It's perfectly possible to believe, for example, that same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage, and polygynous marriage should be permitted, but polyandrous marriage should not -- depending on the rationales justifying each.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
He reads a lot like Week-Dead Possum, to me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Although I'm on the same side of the same-sex marriage debate, I'm a little startled at the immediate dogpiling here. Maybe everyone was already keyed up from arguing with Ron and lashed out? Or are we just too tired of this argument to welcome anyone new to it?
Of course LIGHT can vote for whatever law he or she likes. That's kind of the point of voting. Whether that law is a good or bad one is a different topic. You're also welcome to vote against it, and if it's too out there either someone will sue to overturn it or the courts will weigh in on its Constitutionality (a Constitution notably devoid of religious trappings, by the way, and containing in its very first amendment protection against the government endorsing a religion).
LIGHT can tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe the characterization of homosexuality as being selfish is that it's seen as a choice for sexual pleasure and turning away from God vs bonding and raising a family, as God intended.
This, of course, utterly ignores the fact that homosexuals have families, love their children, and can work to better their community just as much as heterosexuals can.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This is only true if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage is "any declaration of marriage between any combination of things should be valid." It's perfectly possible to believe, for example, that same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage, and polygynous marriage should be permitted, but polyandrous marriage should not -- depending on the rationales justifying each.
This seems true - but if it is true, that means there does not exist any unlimited "right to marriage". The question then focuses on which limits should exist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It's me. I'm light.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Where is Ron? Did he realize his views about meteors didn't make sense?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It does seem kind of peculiar, yet doesn't read like someone else's posting style.
Leaving God and religion completely out of it, my concern about gay marriage is far more simple. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage. If not aren't you discriminating against people that have other types of alternative lifestyles?
I recall answering this concern for you in some detail the last time you raised it. You ignored me, clearly. I have no interest in batting the same ball of yarn again. You are quickly running out of credit with me, and I suspect many others here, by playing that particular game. It doesn´t´make you look very honest.
I really don't give a damn if I have any credit with you, because it is impossible to have a discussion with you. You frame most of your posts the same way.
Beginning: Insult the person you disagree with
Middle: Either dismiss the other persons post completely or tell them that they are wrong
End: Insult them again
I would LOVE to have a discussion with you without you resorting to attacks or insults.
I'll let you in on a secret. If you insult people, eventually they stop reading whatever you have to say. I've come into threads and seen a response you have written and just skipped it because I know I will just get angry from the insults.
That being said, I do recall the thread you are referring to but cannot find it to read what you posted. If you don't mind linking me the thread I would be happy to read it and respond.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Where is Ron? Did he realize his views about meteors didn't make sense?
Ron's Peace Out mode does not come with the feature of that realization, sorry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage.
This is only true if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage is "any declaration of marriage between any combination of things should be valid." It's perfectly possible to believe, for example, that same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage, and polygynous marriage should be permitted, but polyandrous marriage should not -- depending on the rationales justifying each.
^
It is pretty easy to maintain a standard of something, like, "Only marriage between consenting adults."
As fun as it is to go for the scare tactic of asserting that allowing gay marriage necessarily means opening the floodgates for allowing 13 year old harem girls and dolphins into marriages, it's pretty d.o.a.!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, while I am not qualified to set forth all the features and limits of Divine Justice, it seems likely that God will show favor as much as He can, without leaving Himself open to being accused of bribing people to be faithful to Him.
On a local scale, such as the "street" I mentioned, God would have much more freedom to intervene without compromising His overall purposes. As for a city or larger population area, we have at least the example of Sodom, where Abraham pleaded with God to spare the city, because his nephew Lot lived there with his family:
quote: And Abraham came near and said, "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? "Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"So the Lord said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes." Then Abraham answered and said, "Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: "Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?" So He said, "If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it." And he spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose there should be forty found there?" So He said, "I will not do it for the sake of forty." Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." And he said, "Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty." Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten."--Genesis 18:23-32; NKJV
As it turned out, God apparently found less than ten righteous men in Sodom. But He sent His angels to lead Lot and his wife and two daughters out of Sodom before it was destroyed by fire out of the sky. Lot's wife disobeyed God's command not to look back, and she lost her deliverance. So only Lot and his two daughters survived.
Will being faithful to God ensure that you never suffer calamity? No. Again, that would leave God open to the charge that He was bribing people to be faithful to Him. But just the same, God will surely bend every limit He can to spare as many as He can.
The Bible speaks of something called the "cup" of God's wrath. (For example, see Psalms 78:5; Rev. 18:6, 7.) There is a limit to God's patience. When the limit of the cup is reached, God's patience ends, and just punishment must come. Rebels against God become emboldened when He does not punish them immediately for their rebellion and acts of persecution against those who remain faithful to Him. But God defers His just punishments only because they are so terrible, and He wants to give everyone who might repent a chance to do so. When the cup is full, Justice will be done, and punishment will fall.
[ January 31, 2011, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage.
This is only true if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage is "any declaration of marriage between any combination of things should be valid." It's perfectly possible to believe, for example, that same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage, and polygynous marriage should be permitted, but polyandrous marriage should not -- depending on the rationales justifying each.
Right, but removing religion and morals from the equation completely, what makes one type of marriage ok but another? What are the rationales?
Is there a tipping point that says "After X% of people believe in the US believe a certain type of marriage is socially acceptable, we will change the definition of marriage to extend the benefits to the group of people that believe in that type of marriage?"
If that is the case, then I am FINE with it. If there is enough support for it, then by all means let it be legal.
The LGBT agenda though is using the discrimination argument. Using the argument that it is human rights and discrimination issue is a poor way to argue your point unless you are open to allowing all kinds of marriages.
This is the way I am seeing it unfold:
People that believe in traditional marriage are saying, "Marriage is ok for us but not for anyone else!"
People that believe in gay marriage are saying "Marriage is ok for those of the same sex too, but not for those that believe in polygamy, polyandry, or any other type of non-traditional marriage."
A guy named Joe in Australia said a few weeks ago, "Screw all of you, I'm going to marry my dog."
Oh and Ron, I don't know if I would use Lott as a good example....He did end up getting his daughter pregnant. Hows that for non-traditional?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
For the record, there are other non-traditional marriage structures I might support, but they are so far removed for what could potentially pass congress right now that I'm leaving that fight for a future generation. I suspect some portion of LBGT supporters feel the same way.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lot with one "t," Geraine. The Bible always tells the truth about people, even about those ultimately judged as faithful. No one was worse than King David, who committed murder and adultery. But when Nathan the prophet confronted him with the truth of how God saw what he had done, David gave in to conviction and repented. See Pslams 51. In this David was an example for sinners to heed.
In defense of Lot's daughters, they were concerned that with his wife gone, he would have no one to continue his line. This did not excuse what they did, but at least what they did was out of concern for their father. By the way, the Biblical record is that the daughters deliberately got Lot so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:removing religion and morals from the equation completely
Religion and morals are two different things, of course.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The morals of society are almost always informed by religion, Tom. That is why some atheists have admitted they oppose religion--because it tends to restrict their sexual freedom (Aldous Huxley said that). Link: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/huxley.php Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Although I'm on the same side of the same-sex marriage debate, I'm a little startled at the immediate dogpiling here. Maybe everyone was already keyed up from arguing with Ron and lashed out? Or are we just too tired of this argument to welcome anyone new to it?
Could be that her referring to the relationships of people that I hold dear as "gross and disgusting", her actively working to deny them their rights, and her perversion of my faith got my back up.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer, while I am not qualified to set forth all the features and limits of Divine Justice, it seems likely that God will show favor as much as He can, without leaving Himself open to being accused of bribing people to be faithful to Him.
If he helps even a few people, isn't that a sort of bribery? You're saying that joining the community of the faithful reduces my chances of dying in a natural disaster. Isn't that (among other things) a way of giving me a worldly incentive to believe? What more would it take for this to count as a bribe?
quote:Will being faithful to God ensure that you never suffer calamity? No. Again, that would leave God open to the charge that He was bribing people to be faithful to Him.
Why is that? If you always protect your friends from harm, does that leave you open to the charge that you're bribing people to be your friends?
That's not what I'd call bribery, it's just being a good guy.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The morals of society are almost always informed by religion, Tom. That is why some atheists have admitted they oppose religion--because it tends to restrict their sexual freedom (Aldous Huxley said that). Link: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/huxley.php
What an example to choose. Do you really think that is representative?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Having heard the "I was drunk, it isn't my fault" card played a few times too often (including rape) I would say, if you can't handle your liquor, don't drink. I'm drunk doesn't give a pass in my mind.
As for rights, I will admit, I had a hard time seeing why this was being framed as a rights issue for a while. I was in favor of SSM, but against the argument. However, I have had several discussions that have changed my mind.
First, a civil right is one that society has decided on. In our society, our supreme court has stated that government sanctioning of marriage is a right. This was over the southern states refusing to recognize interracial marriages. Having established this as a right, in order for the state to not recognize a marriage, it must demonstrate a legitimate reason. So,let's look at a few couple: Adam and Eve, Joe and Jane, Jack and Jill, Bubba and Spot and Steve and Bill.
1) Adam and Eve. Adam has been snipped, Eve had a histerectomy. Do w allow them to wed? Well, in current society, yes we do. We believe marriage is about more than baby making and love is what matters. And they could adopt. So, we let them marry as society. 2) Joe and Jane- Jane is 13, Joe 50. Do we let them marry? As a society a major goal is protecting children. In accordance with that goal, we deny this marriage. Furthermore, marriage is a contract and we do not allow children to enter into numerous contracts because they lack the cognitive ability to consent. Therefore, we reject this marriage until Jane is old enough to enter into a formal contract. 3)Jack and Jill- they are siblings. As a society, we question the ability of these two to make a decision without coercion. We don't really trust that they both chose this. Contracts must be entered into without force in our society. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that this marriage would lead to a less physically healthy society (hemophilia in the royal line of europe being an example of this). So, we can look at this marriage and eject it, even if Jack and Jill were sterile. 4)Bubba and Spot. Spot is Bubba's dog. A dog cannot consent to any contract in our society. So, we can reject it right there. Furthermore, having sex with a dog, married or not, is not legal since it is abuse. 5) Steve and Bill- Steve and bill are both 25, both have good income, full mental facilities and have hired a surrugate to carry a child for them. For what reason can we reject this couple? They are both capable of entering into a contract, them having sex is not illegal. There is no issue of abuse. No matter how you look at it, the only difference between them and Adam and Eve is that bill is male. We have decided that "he's a boy" is not a good enough reason to deny someone a right. So, until we come up with a better reason than he is a boy, we cannot forbid this marriage. And yes, he can't have a baby on his own, but neither can Adam and Eve in this scenario. Lastly, what about Rachel, Leah and Isreal? Well, this contract gives 100% rights to one other person (like if Leah is in a car accident and is dying, the person she is married to gets to make decisions). So, now we need to determine a new structure- does rachel get a 50% medical decision making ability, Isreal 50% and the court breaks ties? If Leah has a kid by Isreal, does rachel get 33% rights? Clearly the current contract does not answer these questions. Perhaps it could be modified to answer these questions, but right now, the contract is a 2person deal.
Now let's say you still don't consider that argument a reason. Steve and Bill can go marry chicks, they dont need to marry each other (which I disagree with but let's assume that you won't change that viewpoint). In our example, Steve and Bill hired a surrogate and have a baby. Genetically, it is Bill's. Steve is working, Bill is full time stay at home dad. Steve's company says, nope, no health care for baby. Nope, if you die, baby doesn't get inheritence automatically. Social security, nope, not for you. Baby is at a disadvantage in life compared to adam and eve's adopted baby. Why is BabyEve given rights BabySteve isn't? BabyEve made no different choice than BabySteve. So, why is the government treating them differrently? The fact that BabySteve's parents are gay is not a fair justificaation for denying him the same privelages (such as inheritence, social security,etc) as are given to BabyEve. Even if BabySteve's parents are evil sinners, that does not justify the disadvantages society is putting on BabySteve.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, please limit your blanket statements about the Christian faith to your personal understanding of the Christian faith. Not all of agree with you or care to be lumped in with your generalities.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Having heard the "I was drunk, it isn't my fault" card played a few times too often (including rape) I would say, if you can't handle your liquor, don't drink
Even if it's just with your daughters?
Brick Testament has a great portrayal of Lot's seduction, by the way:
LIGHT, it was Ron that played the drunk card (for Lot), not you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, it is a common mistake to assume that all the members of a particular religion believe the same things. Most of us need to be reminded now and again.
As far as your opinions on homosexuality are concerned, I think that you have a lot of misinformation. TO start. But that is a longer conversation.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
He reads a lot like Week-Dead Possum, to me.
That a joke? This is Ori, I just use WD to show I´m on my mobile, thus my answers are short, and usually I have harder time editing. I don´t use sock puppets. Everybody who wants to know knows this is me.
Eta: the apostrophes give it away, because my keypad doesn´t have them, because it isn´t in English, so I do ´this´.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scolarette, You are absolutely correct that we don't demand couples be fertile, but its also worth noting that we don't even require that they love each other either. We do not require that their relationship is sexual in nature. We don't require that they cohabit. If a man a woman choose to marry solely for financial or legal benefits, its completely legal. All the law actually demands is that they pay the appropriate fees and agree to the legal contract and that the marriage isn't solely to circumvent immigration laws (and maybe the 5th amendment thing).
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It does seem kind of peculiar, yet doesn't read like someone else's posting style.
Leaving God and religion completely out of it, my concern about gay marriage is far more simple. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage. If not aren't you discriminating against people that have other types of alternative lifestyles?
I recall answering this concern for you in some detail the last time you raised it. You ignored me, clearly. I have no interest in batting the same ball of yarn again. You are quickly running out of credit with me, and I suspect many others here, by playing that particular game. It doesn´t´make you look very honest.
I really don't give a damn if I have any credit with you, because it is impossible to have a discussion with you. You frame most of your posts the same way.
Beginning: Insult the person you disagree with
Middle: Either dismiss the other persons post completely or tell them that they are wrong
End: Insult them again
That being said, I do recall the thread you are referring to but cannot find it to read what you posted. If you don't mind linking me the thread I would be happy to read it and respond.
I should do your homework for you... Why? I read your posts, as awful as they can be. Too bad you can´t bring yourself to read mine. I´m the one doing the quality thinking here, between you and me.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I honestly think the best thing you could do in order to expand your perspective is get to know some happy gay people, LIGHT.
It is difficult - when you are taught that homosexuality is sinful and depraved - to imagine how it seems to people with different beliefs. That other people don't really seem to care can seem like evidence of depravity or lack of morals.
I find it useful to consider that within the religious community of beliefs such as yours, gay people are often tortured by shame, and this can manifest itself in ways that can easily be viewed as proof that the sin of gay sex itself corrupts the basic goodness of the person [and indeed, there is truth to this idea in that context, but the basic correctness of that context is pretty crucial, and I probably believe differently from you on that point]. This is oversimplifying, but I think it is often somewhat true*:
1) Person is taught that homosexuality is evil. 2) Person realizes homosexual tendencies. 3) Person struggles to "repent" and believes deep down that their gay tendencies are a mark of bad character. 4) Failure to cure themselves of gay tendencies leads to deep shame. 5) Person may slip up and commit what they believe are grave sexual sins. 6) Misery and shame over mortal sin may cause the individual to act out in other ways, such as drug use, or obsessing over sex to the detriment of other behaviors that would make them more successful.
Among those more successfully adherent, this can look like evidence that sinning in this manner causes one to become a basically worse person.
However, if you remove #1, the rest needn't follow. (From the faith-based community you are part of, you can also conclude that repentance would have been a viable solution to the problem[s], but this about learning to appreciate a different context. )
If you get to know well adjusted gay people, you will learn that though they might be doing things you consider gravely sinful and against God's will, they are often ALSO paying taxes, doing charity, being good friends and neighbors, raising happy children...i.e. contributing positively to society. It makes it easier to understand that the some of the consequences you thought inhered to the sin might actually be a result of very human - and therefore very flawed - institutions.
*Of course, it's not always true. I know of cases where the person was pretty successfully adherent until they finally realized they no longer believed the same things, which provided the freedom to openly embrace their sexual orientation. Sadly I think the more pathological pattern I described above is quite common, although thankfully not totally inescapable.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I should do your homework for you... Why? I read your posts, as awful as they can be. Too bad you can´t bring yourself to read mine. I´m the one doing the quality thinking here, between you and me.
Even though I am very likely to agree with whatever you posted in the specified post, you're still being a jerk.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Granted. As I often do. I am not suffering his laziness at all well.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I honestly think the best thing you could do in order to expand your perspective is get to know some happy gay people, LIGHT.
It is difficult - when you are taught that homosexuality is sinful and depraved - to imagine how it seems to people with different beliefs. That other people don't really seem to care can seem like evidence of depravity or lack of morals.
I find it useful to consider that within the religious community of beliefs such as yours, gay people are often tortured by shame, and this can manifest itself in ways that can easily be viewed as proof that the sin of gay sex itself corrupts the basic goodness of the person [and indeed, there is truth to this idea in that context, but the basic correctness of that context is pretty crucial, and I probably believe differently from you on that point]. This is oversimplifying, but I think it is often somewhat true*:
1) Person is taught that homosexuality is evil. 2) Person realizes homosexual tendencies. 3) Person struggles to "repent" and believes deep down that their gay tendencies are a mark of bad character. 4) Failure to cure themselves of gay tendencies leads to deep shame. 5) Person may slip up and commit what they believe are grave sexual sins. 6) Misery and shame over mortal sin may cause the individual to act out in other ways, such as drug use, or obsessing over sex to the detriment of other behaviors that would make them more successful.
Among those more successfully adherent, this can look like evidence that sinning in this manner causes one to become a basically worse person.
However, if you remove #1, the rest needn't follow. (From the faith-based community you are part of, you can also conclude that repentance would have been a viable solution to the problem[s], but this about learning to appreciate a different context. )
If you get to know well adjusted gay people, you will learn that though they might be doing things you consider gravely sinful and against God's will, they are often ALSO paying taxes, doing charity, being good friends and neighbors, raising happy children...i.e. contributing positively to society. It makes it easier to understand that the some of the consequences you thought inhered to the sin might actually be a result of very human - and therefore very flawed - institutions.
*Of course, it's not always true. I know of cases where the person was pretty successfully adherent until they finally realized they no longer believed the same things, which provided the freedom to openly embrace their sexual orientation. Sadly I think the more pathological pattern I described above is quite common, although thankfully not totally inescapable.
´I like your style dude...´
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Is that how you imagine LIGHT starting the conversation with his new gay friends? Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
There's no way I can know what will make you happiest, Light, but I confess it makes me feel a little sad that you struggle so. I hope you find the accommodation between desires and beliefs that you need.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: So more than anything else, a civil marriage is simply a union for accounting and census purposes, and really nothing more than that... Is that right?
No. a civil marriage accomplishes a large number of the same social objectives that a religious marriage does, minus the religion. Some people, myself included, believe that there are significant social benefits to the extension of civil marriage to homosexual couples. Marriage has been around longer than Christianity, is not practiced exclusively in Christianity, nor was it created for the purposes of Christians, nor do the Christian views of marriage in actual fact define the term or institution. So removing marriage, legally, from a religious context is not in fact co-opting anything, nor stripping anything from the concept of marriage, other than the specific religious traditions of Christians. As a democratic society, we cannot and must not actively preference the traditions of Christians or any other religion when it comes to matters of civil rights. Marriage is a civil right. Should homosexuals become fully recognized as a protected legal class in this country (meaning for your purposes, that they are protected against alienation of civil rights in the same ways that the individual sexes are), the right for them to marry will become a reality, in the same way that the rights of women to own property, to work, to vote, and to protect their reproductive rights have become reality. I hope it does.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, for some people (St. Augustine for example) sex is an unhealthy thing. They are not capable of experiencing it in a healthy way that brings them closer to God. This is not very many people. Some people could experience sex in a healthy way but they have been conditioned by church, family, society to regard normal, healthy sexuality as bad. Sometimes they never get over this. Others can manage to understand sexuality as a blessing and a sacrament - a conduit of God's grace and one of God's greatest gifts. With or without the added blessing of procreation. Too often, we approach sexuality as though everyone is in the first group when this is simply not so. And you may well be in that first group. I suspect that you are in the second (because that is the case for so many people), but I don't know you. Whichever is the case, I hope you can recognize that there are plenty of people in the last group, including people who are gay.
Edit to add: This may be a good place to insert a reminder that some Christian denominations do celebrate marriage between same-sex couples.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Rabbit- you are correct. Technically, marriage does not require love, sex or cohabitation, unless you are immigrating. In a more extended conversation, immigration rights do come up with regard to gay marriage. I have a close friend who was in love but visa ran out and while they were willing to move to be together, immigration issues made that almost impossible, so the immgration rules are a factor in my thinking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, would you vote for jail sentences for Sabbath breakers? To keep people who fail to honor their parents out of the military? Would you have rape victims stoned? There is as much scriptural weight for those positions as there is for yours.
Do you think that Muslims are right in choosing Sharia law? Would you care to live under such a system if they were in the majority? Remember that their motivations and religious zeal are as pure as yours and their convictions held as firmly.
I think that, should you examine your conscience on those issues, you may come to more of an understanding of how you can support civil rights while not participating in something you feel is wrong.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Light, I think everyone is happy that you take the effort to go into a voting booth and vote your conscience. If you can't vote for gay marriage, at least you won't be tempted to physically block others from doing so, nor will you see them as "Evil" or "The Enemy". Just as we hope those that vote for gay marriage won't condemn you for your vote.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Thanks, Chris. Yes, I actually did forget to include that whole part about how there are good, contributing members of the community that do happen to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. Like I said, I don't hate the people. Perhaps hate is too strong of a word. Maybe the better word is 'reject'. I can't abide sexual sin. If it comes into my life, I get rid of it to every extent that I can. Same goes for every other sin. I don't ever reject the people, or at least I try my hardest not to, but everyone has their bad moments, right?
I apologize for being antagonistic. It's not even that I was "coming off" as antagonistic--I really was. I don't know what got into me. I think I have some serious issues to deal with. Sin has given me so much crud over the past several years that my resolve against it has grown rather hard, and that can reveal itself in fairly hostile ways--as you all saw earlier. So I do sincerely apologize.
How do you combat evil in your life without becoming evil yourself? How is it done?
I think the first step is to recognize that sin is a personal and private issue, not a matter of public policy. Unless other people are engaging in sex acts with you, their "sins" have nothing to do with you. You can choose sexual purity even if everyone in your community is engaging in wanton, lascivious, sinful sex. Their sins are between them and God, not you and them. That's what Jesus meant when he taught "Judge not, that ye be not judged".
Once you internalize that, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't even make real sense because you don't hate sin, you avoid sinning. And a major part of avoiding sinning is loving everyone and refraining from judging them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, I understand. Your religion requires that you believe what your prophets tell you. I get that you do not wish to let go of that. I am not asking you to do that though there are some that (happily) do.
But try and balance that belief about what is not okay for you to do with a government that allows religious freedom. There is no more reason to vote against equal rights than there is to vote for a ban on cola.
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon and join the new members... now's as good a time as any, and I've been lurking for a while.
Personally, I think that opposing gay marriage goes against what Christianity is fundamentally about. To me, Christ and Christianity is about living in a loving way. And if two homosexual partners love each other and want to get married, I think that's a beautiful thing and a very Christian thing.
Also, I don't believing in God or faith precludes a degree of reason when it comes to society and its laws. I think that a conscience is a God-given, God-created thing, and mine says (very loudly) that the current state of affairs, in which gays are not allowed to marry, is wrong. It's not fair to those who are gay, and neither is it fair to their children (as scholarette already said).
LIGHT, your religious choices are your own. Not drinking tea or coffee doesn't make sense to me, but if you believe in it, then by all means don't drink them. But not condoning homosexuality and spreading this kind of alarmist rhetoric actively hurts other people. And personally, I think that if you're conflicted about this issue yourself, you shouldn't be opposing same-sex marriage this vehemently.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:snort: If you eliminated all the vehement same-sex marriage opposition that was coming from deeply conflicted sources, there wouldn't be very much of it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
LIGHT, I am watching with interest to see if your continual apologizing, etc., gets you anywhere with this crowd. I expect that they will only interpret it as weakness.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: What I am conflicted about is how to portray this resolve without angering everyone on this board. That's a kind of sensitive subject, as I've discovered. So no, I'm not conflicted about the issue so much as I'm conflicted about the delivery.
You have to know what it is that's 'angering' people. If it's your delivery, then changing the deliver will help. If it's the actual position you hold, then it doesn't matter how you deliver it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I actually respect Light's argument, don't agree, but respect it. She admits it comes down to her religious philosophy, I can deal with that.
Ron is trying to give political reasoning, that his rights would be infringed. That just doesn't hold up. His rights aren't infringed during any other "godless" ceremony (courthouse ceremonies) or interfaith ceremonies.
I agree with what others have said, let all non-religious marriages be called civil unions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: LIGHT, I am watching with interest to see if your continual apologizing, etc., gets you anywhere with this crowd. I expect that they will only interpret it as weakness.
What, compared to cowardice?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: LIGHT, I am watching with interest to see if your continual apologizing, etc., gets you anywhere with this crowd. I expect that they will only interpret it as weakness.
And I sincerely hope, it allows for good discourse to take place. Don't you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What I am conflicted about is how to portray this resolve without angering everyone on this board.
Implying that the desire of homosexuals to marry is selfish and destructive won't win you many friends, true. But I think you've already hit the point where you've acknowledged that that opinion is a post-facto justification for the commandments you've decided to obey, and not something you've confident is true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, I appreciate that you want to be considerate and polite but there just isn't a nice way to deny people equal rights.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
LIGHT- I am trying to post without violating TOS so if I go out of line, I apologize and will edit or delete whatever needs to be. In our religion, we believe the prophet can be wrong. We accept that certain statements of Brigham Young can be ignored because they were made by the man, not the office. At the time, which of those statements were doctrine and which are personal was not clear. Now, we can basically ignore all of the crazy racist crap because it was not added to the D&C. So, in modern days, we have a prophet who said some stuff regarding a politcal bill. He specifically stated that you can vote as you wish with no negative consequences. The closest thing we have to official doctrine on this issue is the proclamation on the family, which does not address specific bills. Also, when an apostle referred to the potf as doctrine at general conference, it was specifically changed from doctrine to guideline before the talk was published, leaving many members doubting the potf's place in LDS canon. So simply stating that your religion says vote this way is a copout. If you have prayed and received confirmation, I really can't argue with that.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:
I agree with what others have said, let all non-religious marriages be called civil unions.
Works for me. And for gay religious Americans, there are churches that will marry same-sex couples.
I am curious, and this directed to Light and others on that side of the issue, is it key that a marriage be "between a man and a woman" or that it is "Christian sacrament between a man and a woman?" I've never heard an anti SSM person voice the opinion that a non-Christian (for example, Hindu or atheist) marriage is less valid than a Christian marriage. Is a Wiccan male-female marriage preferable to a male-male Christan marriage? The whole "my Christian God said..." argument seems to be focusing rather oddly on the gender rather than the faith. Not that I want Cheistians fighting to invalidate non-Christian marriages, but it makes me wonder.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For what it's worth, LIGHT, your care taken in getting more specific and ackowledging other points of view, I've got respect for that proportional to the amount I think you care about the issue overall, which is obviously a great deal.
I'm on the mobile now, but I didn't want you to think Ron's 'suggestion' was accurate. It ain't, for me at least. Can't speak for everyone.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
During that time period I went to my stake president and told him I would not be willing to vote againt SSM (during a temple interview). He said church was not requiring that of members and there was the day after the vote a statement issued reminding everyone that they should vote their conscious and there were to be no negative repurcussions for voting in favor of SSM.
My point was more that we have a responsibility to seek out personal revelation and confirmation. Our moral duty does not end when the prophet speaks. We mst get confirmation for ourselves.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My point was more that we have a responsibility to seek out personal revelation and confirmation. Our moral duty does not end when the prophet speaks. We mst get confirmation for ourselves.
how do you reconcile that with the belief that a prophet acts as the mouthpiece of god?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: We have access to that kind of personalized guidance--given by the prophet to the masses, yet confirmed on the individual level.
individualy confirmed or not, does it not stand as the word of god? what im saying is, it doesnt become god's will once you accept it, right?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Now, LIGHT, in response to your attempts to be more civil, perhaps I can pop in more:
How to phrase this? There are several important things you need to understand.
The first is that homosexuality is not a choice, at least not for most people. I, for example, never chose to be heterosexual. I just was. I find girls attractive, and I never once had to make an attempt to make that true. It simply was. I couldn't become gay if I wanted to. I mean, I could partake in the physical acts, of course, but they would be at best unpleasant.
Now, is it a leap to say that homosexuals are the same way? Not really, when they describe something very similar to my own experiences -but with the same sex, instead of the opposite sex.
Now, can people actually go from gay to straight? In all practical matters, no. They can force themselves in straight relationships, just as I could conceivably force myself into a homosexual relationship. But that won't stop the fact that they are no more attracted to their partner than I would be any other guy, even an apparently attractive one.
But if they can do that, why do I say they cannot change? Because I've seen the effects of the attempts firsthand. At very best, the methods attempted result in willful celibacy, or in the case of bisexuals, who are attracted to both sexes, merely not being with a subset of the people they're attracted to. I've also seen what they do in some of those "ex-gay ministries" and found that they really aren't effective. I could send links, if you want.
More importantly, I have seen friends struggle with this first hand. I have seen good, pure, innocent people that I love come to me begging me to help them change. I have seen those same people, pure and innocent and good beyond measure, broken by people like you. I have seen the destruction your beliefs cause firsthand. Standing as I am within the fallout of splintered hearts and the radiating despair of those I love, I cannot accept the price your belief asks.
And more on topic, I have seen, to a degree that is beyond questioning, that no amount of faith can change basic human nature. You are attracted to who you are attracted to. You can make good decisions about individuals, you can act with prudence, but you can't just decide one day to like the same sex anymore than you can switch it off. You can avoid it, you can fight against it, and you can certainly be celibate, but you can't just switch something like that off, anymore than I can switch off attraction to the opposite sex.
So, that's my view. I can get more into it, but I assure you, faith doesn't change you that way. God doesn't just magic it away. If He did, then the people I love would certainly have never turned out gay in the first place. After all, they "knew" it was wrong, they believed it wholeheartedly.
But when they felt it anyway, through no fault of their own, their response was fear. Anguish. Self-destructive guilt and all-encompassing shame. This over something basic to who they were. Something that didn't harm anybody, not even themselves! To watch this happen, and ultimately be unable to help because the influence of those who believe like you did trapped this girl I loved dearly as though in a cage, is something that I will never forgive myself for.
I've been down that road. No amount of faith talk, no amount of belief to the contrary, will change this anymore than it will change the gravity which holds this whole world together.
Now, you also said to me that I shouldn't box homosexuals into a life without hope, in response to asking you how you'd feel if the same happened to you.
Well, I suggest you think more on how you'd feel if people did to you what you intend to do to others. My point was not that homosexuals are trapped in a hopeless situation, but that you needed to use the empathy that Christ himself asked you to use (You are aware of where I took "do unto others as you would have done to you", right?) to realize why what you are doing is hurtful.
The only suffering homosexuals would feel is the suffering you would impose on them. If it seems like suffering to not be able to marry those who you love, because you are told it is a sin... then maybe you shouldn't do it to others.
So: Homosexuals can't change anymore than you or I can, check. Reiterating my point on empathy, and not treating others the way you wouldn't want to be treated, check. What else did I want to explain? Oh yes, the humanity part, along with the whole "sin" part.
I know you said you regret speaking in such a manner, at least in part because you don't want to make people like me angry. I understand that. It's easy to get heated, and I wish we could have this discussion in person instead, because I could work to make you comfortable, and not sound as antagonistic as I probably am.
However: That hyperbole about questioning your humanity is definitely something to shy away from.
Now: About the whole "sin" thing. You've stated why you believe it, the same reason you won't drink tea or coffee. You said you have been told, and believe it because you believe it is from God, through the prophets.
However, and this won't change your mind, but ask yourself: What harm are they causing? What harm does a happy family with two women and a couple of children cause? What damage does two consenting adults deciding to marry do to your life? What physical manifestation of this tainting sin is there in the world?
If sin destroys the public good, then what part of the public good is destroyed, specifically, by two men loving each other the way a man and a woman do?
What is my friend, who wanted so damn badly to not love another girl, doing to harm this world by feeling this in spite of herself? What damage would be done if she accepted her feelings and actually felt happy?
For homosexuals can be happy in the same way heterosexuals can, and unhappy in the same ways. There's no difference there. Relationships are relationships, there are good ones and bad ones, and which bits you have don't change that. You can have happy same-sex relationships. I've seen them. You can have happy, normal same-sex families, with children thriving no less than in the household of a married man and woman. I've seen this, too.
Let me reiterate: The only harm here is the demonstrable harm people cause by telling these people "your feelings are sinful. You must change. I will not let you marry the person you love, and if you do anything ELSE with them I will be nearly as disgusted."
Do you realize what an effect that has on a human psyche? Do you realize what pain the message causes? I've seen it. If you could only see it too. Maybe it wouldn't change your mind on what God said. But it would help you to understand the consequences of your actions.
Let me be clear: I don't want to attack or insult you. I've probably failed, but I hope you forgive me for that. I am being passionate here, because it matters to me. Because this has affected me. Because for me, the pain of true friends affects me more strongly than my own pain. You are not an enemy. You are not someone I wish to dislike. You have shown some integrity, both in sticking to your position, and to concern that you have insulted others. I hope now you have some stronger sense of where I'm coming from.
Now, speaking as, not a friend but a normal fellow poster with passionate opinions on a matter:
You speak of sexual temptation being a huge battle for you. I'm sorry for that. It's concerning, because it's never good to see someone struggling so strongly with someone.
Naturally, I would not suggest you do something rash, such as hopping into bed with the nearest cutie, or even premarital sex at all: But sexual desire is something fundamental to the human drive. It's something wired in. And for good reason! If we didn't feel it so strongly, and if we didn't enjoy it so much in its own right, we probably wouldn't go to the trouble at all, considering the costs.
If you feel attraction to people, that's not something to feel bad about. What's bad is using that attraction in the wrong way: Making someone have sex with you through coercion or force. Acting irresponsibly in a socially destructive way, such as having sex with someone married or getting some girl pregnant without any plans or means to take responsibility for your actions, or worse skipping out entirely. Recklessly spreading STD's, or even just recklessly having sex with people without concern for the emotional consequences, because this is one of the cornerstones of human intimacy, and not something to be done callously.
I am not, in and of itself, against premarital sex, or cohabitation. What I am against is irresponsible sexuality, like that of a close friend of mine: He has STD's, gave girls STD's because he lied about it, two-timed on girls constantly and betrayed their trust, manipulated them to feel affection towards him, when he didn't love them back, just for sex, got a girl pregnant and put the girl through emotional turmoil because of his noncommital actions and desire to evade responsibility, etc. As seen in that, sex can and is used in ways that are demonstrably bad.
But I don't hold sex as intrinsically bad. Just intrinsically important to be mindful of, due to the emotional and practical ramifications the decision to have sex has. With that in mind, waiting until marriage is not a bad choice. But if you struggle, you do need to know that such intimacy is not wrong. You just have to be responsible. I know your belief is different. And I'm not telling you to do anything, certainly nothing you think is wrong. However, I will offer reassurance, if I can.
As for the civic angle: Others have said it perfectly and succinctly already. The difference between personal morality and civic duty, and public policy, is a good thing to know. kmboots' question (and my earlier similar question, both unaddressed!) about what you feel about other things the Bible says are wrong, and whether you vote against those as well, is important too. You should definitely think on those things.
Even if your personal revelations say differently, I cannot accept the cost. I cannot allow people I care for to suffer, because of someone's personal revelation (which happens to contradict the personal revelations of thousands of others throughout recorded history). That way went some of the most destructive wars in European history. That way went the reason so many people fled to this country in the first place. That way went the reason why the Mormons were ostracized in the first place, and settled in Utah.
That way, ultimately, lies genocide, as is shown by the path Uganda is taking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, I would remind you and your Apostles and your Twelve and your Stake Presidents that Jesus already told us what would separate the sheep from the goats.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: LIGHT, I would remind you and your Apostles and your Twelve and your Stake Presidents that Jesus already told us what would separate the sheep from the goats.
The Apostles ARE the Twelve.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles make up the 15 Apostles on the earth.
I'm curious about your interpretation of this scripture, kmboots. Are you saying that salvation rests solely on our actions toward others?
If that is your point of view, what is your take on the scriptures where Jesus indicates that baptism is essential for salvation? (Matt. 25, Mark 16, John 3) If baptism is not essential for salvation, why was Christ baptized?
Note that Mormon doctrine is filled with echoes of the parable of the sheep and goats. Giving aid to the hungry, comforting the afflicted, helping the poor, etc., is a huge part of being Mormon. King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon, makes it plain that salvation cannot be had, no matter what ordinances or other commandments you obey, unless one is humble and serves the poor and destitute.
I also note that for all his talk of charity, giving, and loving others, Jesus didn't really excuse anyone who was persistent in their sins. He offered mercy; but he never (to my recollection) said, "Don't worry. You'll be fine. Keep doing what you're doing."
I feel like we've had this conversation before...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, LIGHT, welcome to Hatrack.
You're wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The problem here is that the fundamental definition of a central doctrine of our faith has come into question in a public forum, and I will not stand down from that doctrine.
But here's the thing: your doctrine does not need to be codified in secular law. Consider that there is already a separate Mormon concept of "Temple marriage" that has nothing to do with the secular law of marriage -- and yet Mormons are perfectly capable of telling the difference between the two forms.
The idea that same-sex marriage threatens the Mormon concept of marriage only makes sense if you think that preventing homosexuals from having stable, happy, public relationships with each other will somehow prevent homosexuality and encourage stable heterosexual relationships (and that you believe this is a valuable goal, natch, but that goes without saying in this case). I am completely unconvinced that this is the case, and frankly think the benefits to homosexuals of improving the cultural acceptance of homosexuality far outweigh the need for Mormons to occasionally add an adjective when talking about marriage.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The problem here is that the fundamental definition of a central doctrine of our faith has come into question in a public forum, and I will not stand down from that doctrine. You will find that this is a matter of eternity for our faith. You will find that to redefine marriage in this way is, to many, solemn mockery before God.
Leave the word marriage out of it for a moment and ask yourself this. Is there a compelling reason why the government should forbid same sex partners from entering into the same contracts that are open to heterosexual couples? Should the government be allowed to discriminate between people because your religion deems their behavior sinful?
If two women are co-parenting a child should they be able to enter into a marriage contract that would insure survivor benefits for the child if either one of them dies? If two men have shared a home, lives and finances for many years, should they be allowed to enter into a legal contract that would guarantee them rights of next of kin? If two same sex adults form a household and share financial responsibility for each other, should they be able to enter into a contract that makes them on financial unit for government legal purposes? These aren't abstract philosophical questions, they are real and real people face these problems and suffer the consequences every day.
You consider it a sin for two men or two women to have sexual relations, but that's beside the point. Those sexual acts are legal with or without allowing same sex marriage. Do you consider it sinful for two people of the same sex to form a household? Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to love each other? Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to mingle their finances? Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to assume the responsibility for caring for each other. Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to cooperate in raising a child? I also am LDS, and I have never heard any church leader suggest any of those things are sins. Those are the things that are covered under a civil marriage.
Marriage has already been redefined so many times this argument is ridiculous. This is what happens when you start mixing church and state. When you allow religious leaders to solemnize government contracts and governments to regulate religious rituals.
When we are talking about legalizing gay marriage, we aren't talking about anything relating to legal to sex. With in many religions, marriage is a an ordinance or sacrament that solemnizes and legitimizes the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. But under law, marriage is just a legal contract between two people conferring certain rights and responsibilities, none of which have anything to do with sex. That's why many people are suggesting we change the words. Call the legal contract a "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" to churches and other NGOs.
Using the same word for the two very different concepts is confusing. But even if we keep the word marriage for both, I think most people are smart enough to figure out that they don't mean the same thing and deal with it. I'm sure God can figure it out and would not be offended by us showing charity and compassion to other human beings without concern about their severity of their sins.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
LIGHT, there are churches which believe that marriage can be between any two adults who choose to marry. They celebrate same-sex marriage in their churches. If those denominations become a majority in this country should they be able to define marriage for your church?
I think, and suspect that you do to, that the answer is no. But neither should the definition used by your church be binding on those other churches. The Iowa Supreme Court decision does a really good job of spelling out the reasons why, in a society with freedom of religion, no one religion's definition of marriage can be given precedence over another.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: LIGHT, I would remind you and your Apostles and your Twelve and your Stake Presidents that Jesus already told us what would separate the sheep from the goats.
The Apostles ARE the Twelve.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles make up the 15 Apostles on the earth.
I'm curious about your interpretation of this scripture, kmboots. Are you saying that salvation rests solely on our actions toward others?
If that is your point of view, what is your take on the scriptures where Jesus indicates that baptism is essential for salvation? (Matt. 25, Mark 16, John 3) If baptism is not essential for salvation, why was Christ baptized?
Note that Mormon doctrine is filled with echoes of the parable of the sheep and goats. Giving aid to the hungry, comforting the afflicted, helping the poor, etc., is a huge part of being Mormon. King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon, makes it plain that salvation cannot be had, no matter what ordinances or other commandments you obey, unless one is humble and serves the poor and destitute.
I also note that for all his talk of charity, giving, and loving others, Jesus didn't really excuse anyone who was persistent in their sins. He offered mercy; but he never (to my recollection) said, "Don't worry. You'll be fine. Keep doing what you're doing."
I feel like we've had this conversation before...
I am not saying that salvation rests solely on our behaviour toward others. Nor am I saying that Mormons are uncharitable - though many of them seem capable of voting against having the government reflect those charitable ideals and allowing charity to be a personal act. I am saying that Jesus gave a very specific metaphor about sheep and goats and very specific actions and for someone (and I apologize for my confusion regarding your hierarchy) to appropriate that language to say, "what really separates sheep and goats is something quite different" is a little appalling to me. If he has said, "this is what separates good Mormons from bad ones", he would be welcome to it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Nor am I saying that Mormons are uncharitable - though many of them seem capable of voting against having the government reflect those charitable ideals and allowing charity to be a personal act.
The first objection I understand. The second, not so much. 'Allowing charity to be a personal act--' in the context of this conversation, what do you mean?
What's your position on raising taxes in order to better support the welfare system?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh. Probably shouldn't have included that as it is a bit of a distraction from the point. I am just saying separating personal religious ideals of charity from how we vote on what the government should do could be a good model for LIGHT to use in separating his personal religious ideals of sexuality and needing the government to reflect that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From a religious perspective, it is not charitable to encourage or support someone in their sin, kmboots, which is what legalization of same-sex marriage can be said to do.
Within the brand of Christianity which I belong to, it is also not permissible to abuse the sinner in any way, or to trick them, or remove their capacity for agency. I'm afraid that we don't always live up to the ideal.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to separate one's morality from the way that someone interacts with public government. It feels like censorship.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't want to be scary. I really don't.
I don't believe you. If you really didn't want to, you'd spend some time working on your own ethical questions without hiding behind your church as an excuse.
quote:I will render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's.
You don't think secular marriage law, in this context, would be "Caesar's?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't worry about being scary. "You're scaring me" is just another rhetorical trick intended to disempower one's ideological adversary. You're not scaring anyone at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From a religious perspective, it is not charitable to encourage or support someone in their sin, kmboots, which is what legalization of same-sex marriage can be said to do.
Within the brand of Christianity which I belong to, it is also not permissible to abuse the sinner in any way, or to trick them, or remove their capacity for agency. I'm afraid that we don't always live up to the ideal.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to separate one's morality from the way that someone interacts with public government. It feels like censorship.
It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
LIGHT, "I want to be nice and good and I don't know the answers but my church says x so I have to go along with it" is not an excuse. You don't get nice points for "the church says so". You have a heart and a mind and a choice and bear the responsibility for your decisions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You are a part of the church. You are also a human being with a brain. You are saying that, on topics on which you believe your church has spoken, you do not need to use your brain.
I find that problematic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Light:
Lighten up. You can explain your position without sounding like a Bruce McConkie knock-off. Just use a normal, conversational voice, like you'd use when you talk with your friends.
quote:You don't think secular marriage law, in this context, would be "Caesar's?"
Jesus side-stepped that question when it was put to him, you know.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
An example of the good gay marriage can do. Even in a purely secular context, the word "marriage" elicits respect in a way no other form of relationship does.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
I don't see the inconsistency you see. Can you explain?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for that link, ambyr.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
I don't see the inconsistency you see. Can you explain?
It seems important to supporters of Prop 8 that the government of the whole country reflect their specific religious ideals about marriage and family life. Is it similarly important that the government also impose religious ideals with regard to such clearly mandated issues of providing for the poor and taking care of the sick? For some, it may be. For others, why not?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
I don't see the inconsistency you see. Can you explain?
It the naturalistic fallacy: specifically, the "good" in "morality" is synonymous with good, and so that which is non-moral in basis (for example, rationalist civil government) is necessarily a-moral, because a philosophy not based in terms of "morality" is also not concerned with "good."
A very typical Christian argument runs along the lines of this fallacy- specifically that the goodness of humanity is synonymous with the teaching of religious morals, and that goodness is impossible without a specified moral worldview. This is why Christians ask atheists sometimes what stops them from just killing people, or going bananas, as if Christian morality is totally synonymous with the ethical and moral reasonings of the individual mind, and that without that kind of morality, we are unable to hold onto a stable worldview without become overloaded with our own inner conflicts, and exploding. It doesn't occur to them, or they are not taught to consider, that it is possible that "morality," as in a will to seek the collective good, is learned mimetically within a society, and that it naturally appeals to the human mind for adaptive purposes.
In this particular comment, there is also an appeal to incredulity along the lines of: "if the government gets involved in one moral question, why not *all* moral questions?" Which employs the naturalistic fallacy, ignoring the fact that this is, concerning government, a question of the proper functioning of democracy and government in its approach to individuals, and not its approach to morality.
I think what is being said is: "Government should not be involved in morality, or else fully involved" when in fact it is being argued that government should be involved in "doing good," which is not solely in the domain of the morality that is conceived of by Christians.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It seems important to supporters of Prop 8 that the government of the whole country reflect their specific religious ideals about marriage and family life. Is it similarly important that the government also impose religious ideals with regard to such clearly mandated issues of providing for the poor and taking care of the sick? For some, it may be. For others, why not?
Hm. That's not an inconsistency, seeing as how the two subjects are not related. I don't think that believing that the government should interfere in one place necessarily means they should interfere in ALL places.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It seems important to supporters of Prop 8 that the government of the whole country reflect their specific religious ideals about marriage and family life. Is it similarly important that the government also impose religious ideals with regard to such clearly mandated issues of providing for the poor and taking care of the sick? For some, it may be. For others, why not?
Hm. That's not an inconsistency, seeing as how the two subjects are not related. I don't think that believing that the government should interfere in one place necessarily means they should interfere in ALL places.
How does one decide and why would they decide on this particular imposition of morality?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"I know I have a brain, Tom. What would you have me do? Would you have me think up a way to both follow what the Church asks of me and to compromise my standards? Those don't really go along together..."
Really? Because it looks exactly like what you're doing. Compromising on the possibility of a broader view because your Church asks you to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How does one decide and why would they decide on this particular imposition of morality?
Perhaps it isn't an "imposition of morality." I know it might look like one, to you anyway. Still, there are "impositions" of "morality," all over the law, and they have everything to do with the rule of law and order before morality even comes into question.
It's immoral to drive drunk, and yet you don't call all anti-drunk driving campaigns "moral" campaigns. They can be civic campaigns, and they can appeal to civic duty. It is uncivil to drive drunk, after all. And these are not the same things. For you it may be immoral to have gay sex, and yet it is not uncivil to do so. It has no detrimental effect on society.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How does one decide and why would they decide on this particular imposition of morality?
Ah! Motivation. I can't know for anyone but myself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you have me think up a way to both follow what the Church asks of me and to compromise my standards?
No. Presumably you have standards which are not those of the church. I am asking you to use your brain to reconcile your standards with the requests of the church.
If your standards prevent you from recognizing the value of extending marriage to same-sex couples, of course, that's a different issue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:How does one decide and why would they decide on this particular imposition of morality?
Ah! Motivation. I can't know for anyone but myself.
Nor can I but it seems like an area of self-investigation that could prove fruitful. I think it is important, particularly for someone who hasn't thought this all the way through to examine why a Christian would find it more important for the government to defend a certain type of sexual morality than to fee the hungry and take care of the sick. There may be reasons. In the usual scripture, Jesus seems to me to have different priorities. I don't know enough about LDS scripture to know if he had other things to say there.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think it is important, particularly for someone who hasn't thought this all the way through to examine why a Christian would find it more important for the government to defend a certain type of sexual morality than to fee the hungry and take care of the sick. There may be reasons. In the usual scripture, Jesus seems to me to have different priorities.
This is a very good question. Do many Christians out there believe Christ would care more about who the government declares "married" than about the hungry or the sick?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Avoiding the motivation discussion entirely...
quote:I think it is important, particularly for someone who hasn't thought this all the way through to examine why a Christian would find it more important for the government to defend a certain type of sexual morality than to fee the hungry and take care of the sick
The delta makes a difference, I think. It's a pretty big change, after all. Not that feeding the hungry, administering to the sick is less important than morality, but that it's a particular type of morality which has been standard for a long time (decades, even!) is undergoing radical change.
In other words, if someone is suffering a heart attack, you don't focus on their breast cancer while giving them CPR.
quote:In the usual scripture, Jesus seems to me to have different priorities. I don't know enough about LDS scripture to know if he had other things to say there.
Are you sticking to the gospels only, or are you looking at the standard Bible? (By standard, I mean the King James Version) Do you accept that Jesus agreed with what was written in the Old Testament? Where do you feel he would deviate?
I know you're Catholic, but IIRC, your interpretation of what scriptures apply when isn't predictable.
Mormons have other scriptures that address this particular issue (welfare vs. immorality). In the Book of Mormon, Jacob the prophet calls out that immorality is a worse sin than failing to provide for the poor.
However, throughout the Book of Mormon, it's the people's mistreatment of the poor and their pride in their social standing that does them in time and time again. This remains true through almost the end of the Book of Mormon, when class and riches matter less because of the warfare occurring. Then Mormon, the prophet at the time, makes a statement to the effect that virtue and chastity matter more than just about everything, and that to deprive someone of it is especially foul.
As Mormons, though, we don't rely on ancient scripture alone to make our doctrine: we rely quite heavily on the word of modern prophets. The Proclamation on the Family to the World is clear about the Church's stance on what marriage should be. It also issued a call for all governments of the world to support those standards.
Note that at the same time that the church is pushing its moral agenda in society, it's also strengthening its welfare and charitable services; doctrinally, providing for the poor has been added to the purposes of the church. (Previously, it had been: Preach the Gospel, Redeem the Dead, and Perfect the Saints. Provide for the Poor had been part of Perfect the Saints)
There's no reason that I can see that both topics cannot be addressed.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I will be able to say more later, ad I am on my phone, but: the point I was getting at, LIGHT, was that if you get to impose your beliefs, the why don't those who consider LDS to be unchristian get to run you all to the sea?
If they do not get to impose their faith on you, why should you get to impose your faith on others? Or should they get to act to get rid of you? I know such people, and thy would say you are going to he'll for denying Christ.
So again: do they have the right to impose on you? If you ignore Christlike empathy with your fellow human beings, maybe self preservation will help you see my point, Do unto others as you would have done to you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
Mormons have other scriptures that address this particular issue (welfare vs. immorality). In the Book of Mormon, Jacob the prophet calls out that immorality is a worse sin than failing to provide for the poor.
However, throughout the Book of Mormon, it's the people's mistreatment of the poor and their pride in their social standing that does them in time and time again. This remains true through almost the end of the Book of Mormon, when class and riches matter less because of the warfare occurring. Then Mormon, the prophet at the time, makes a statement to the effect that virtue and chastity matter more than just about everything, and that to deprive someone of it is especially foul.
That would seem enough to answer my question.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
0Megabyte:
Maybe you missed my note to kmboots, but generally it's not considered Christlike to support or assist someone in committing sin. Forgiveness is one thing; permission is something else.
quote:if you get to impose your beliefs, the why don't those who consider LDS to be unchristian get to run you all to the sea?
'Cause we got laws against that sort of thing.
By the way, we ran West. To the desert. And when the government said, "Stop your barbarous marriage practices!" we said, "Okay."
Until recently, it wasn't just the rabidly religious that held the belief that SSM should not be condoned by law. It was pretty much everyone. Again: the delta makes a difference in people's reactions to this subject.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That would seem enough to answer my question.
Well...you'd think so, huh? But I think one of the things that has been consistent in the gospel, from the time that it was presented to Adam, until now, is that different times are...different.
We face different challenges today than we did even 50 years ago. Not to mention 1400, or 2000, or 2600 years...
So it's not like the Book of Mormon is the absolute...standard on what is important in our day. It's incredibly important to the faith, don't get me wrong. But the words of the living prophets matter more.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem I have with Light's reasoning is that good members of the church have thought about it, studied, consulted our leaders and then voted in favor of SSM. The church in response to them said vote your conscious and bishops and stake presidents you can NOT in any way punish them for voting that way. The church gave its ok to vote however a member felt was right. So, saying you voted this way because the church said so is not completely honest. And those of us who voted for SSM are not aligning against God- at least not if you take the prophet at his word.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem I have with Light's reasoning is that good members of the church have thought about it, studied, consulted our leaders and then voted in favor of SSM. The church in response to them said vote your conscious and bishops and stake presidents you can NOT in any way punish them for voting that way. The church gave its ok to vote however a member felt was right. So, saying you voted this way because the church said so is not completely honest. And those of us who voted for SSM are not aligning against God- at least not if you take the prophet at his word.
Word. Up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, if your church considers chastity and sexual morality a higher priority than charity than it makes sense for your members to do so as well.
I don't think it is remotely what Jesus had in mind, but as I am not a member of your church, that is okay.
It does clear up what I thought was an inconsistency. It had not occurred to me that a Christian sect would decide that. I appreciate the clarification.
I am not sure what different time have to do with it as both sex and poverty have been around for a while.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am not sure what different time have to do with it as both sex and poverty have been around for a while.
Different generations have different trials. For the people in the Book of Mormon, for much of their history, class and racial warfare was an enormous spiritual burden.
In Joseph Smith's day, the obstacles were persecution, apostasy, and normalizing/standardizing the church.
In Brigham Young's day, it was persecution and the westward movement.
Etcetera.
Immorality is the obstacle lots of our leaders are pointing at as our generation's particular devil. I don't think that it's that serving the needy is LESS important; just that our standards of morality are being challenged more frequently.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Let me also note that immorality includes a host of sins, not just homosexuality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, what your church decides is important is not really my business except where it tries to influence the public sphere. I was just surprised.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:shrug:
I didn't think your characterization of the church's agenda ("Immorality > welfare"> was quite nuanced enough. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the whole picture.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem I have with Light's reasoning is that good members of the church have thought about it, studied, consulted our leaders and then voted in favor of SSM. The church in response to them said vote your conscious and bishops and stake presidents you can NOT in any way punish them for voting that way. The church gave its ok to vote however a member felt was right. So, saying you voted this way because the church said so is not completely honest. And those of us who voted for SSM are not aligning against God- at least not if you take the prophet at his word.
but if you know god's position - marriage is between a man and a woman - how would voting for SSM not align your will against his?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why would God's definition of what He considers "marriage" matter to secular law?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I will be able to say more later, ad I am on my phone, but: the point I was getting at, LIGHT, was that if you get to impose your beliefs, the why don't those who consider LDS to be unchristian get to run you all to the sea?
They can't do that because persecuting a certain religion is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
Morality can be legislated, but only within the limits set up by the Constitution on the government's legislating power. So, they can't run LIGHT out to sea for being Morman. But they could run him out to sea if he felt it was right to smoke pot or not pay taxes or pollute rivers and the majority disagreed on moral grounds - because those are things the government is allowed to legislate.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why would God's definition of what He considers "marriage" matter to secular law?
because you cant have two opposing definitions of the same concept. besides, why would he state his definition at all unless it mattered? for a theist, doesnt divine law trump secular law?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:because you cant have two opposing definitions of the same concept
Of course you can. We have those all the time.
quote:for a theist, doesnt divine law trump secular law?
I would imagine that for an ethical theist, divine law would only trump secular law when trumping is necessary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And something to do with how much we should impose our particular idea of divine law onto other people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:because you cant have two opposing definitions of the same concept. besides, why would he state his definition at all unless it mattered? for a theist, doesnt divine law trump secular law?
Well, yes, actually. It's just that I think one of the most important 'divine laws' (and I don't even like that term, because of its propensity for misuse-my definition of misuse, obviously) could be put this way: 'make up your own mind so long as it's not hurting anyone!' And gay marriage wouldn't hurt anyone. Even assuming God really does dislike gay marriage in the extreme, a notion I don't grant, well, we're already doing all sorts of things by Christian lights that God just can't stand.
Tons of things. And yet when it comes to gays shackin' up and bein' recognized for it, suddenly a bunch of Bible thumpers come out of the woodwork and suddenly say, "This far, no further!" Suddenly it's Thermopylae or something. It's not for divorce, it's not for booze and drunkeness, it's not for care for the poor and welfare, it's not for warfare, it's not for the death penalty, it's not for adultery, it's not for, it's not for...but gays getting together? Ohhhhhhh, no sir!
And that's why I dislike it when folks start talking about divine law. They don't mean it's 'divine law'. What they mean is, "It's a personal opinion I don't want you to be able to object to."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, that is what I thought, too. It seems these are all trumped by sex other people are having.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It seems these are all trumped by sex other people are having.
There's that nuanced approach Scott was talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:They don't mean it's 'divine law'. What they mean is, "It's a personal opinion I don't want you to be able to object to."
No. This is wrong. That is not what people are saying.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Of course you can. We have those all the time.
I would imagine that for an ethical theist, divine law would only trump secular law when trumping is necessary.
opposing definitions dont work well when drafting laws. and trumping becomes necessary according to the discretion of whom?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, yes, actually. It's just that I think one of the most important 'divine laws' (and I don't even like that term, because of its propensity for misuse-my definition of misuse, obviously) could be put this way: 'make up your own mind so long as it's not hurting anyone!' And gay marriage wouldn't hurt anyone. Even assuming God really does dislike gay marriage in the extreme, a notion I don't grant, well, we're already doing all sorts of things by Christian lights that God just can't stand.
Tons of things. And yet when it comes to gays shackin' up and bein' recognized for it, suddenly a bunch of Bible thumpers come out of the woodwork and suddenly say, "This far, no further!" Suddenly it's Thermopylae or something. It's not for divorce, it's not for booze and drunkeness, it's not for care for the poor and welfare, it's not for warfare, it's not for the death penalty, it's not for adultery, it's not for, it's not for...but gays getting together? Ohhhhhhh, no sir!
And that's why I dislike it when folks start talking about divine law. They don't mean it's 'divine law'. What they mean is, "It's a personal opinion I don't want you to be able to object to."
for not liking when folks talk about divine law you just said a mouthful about it. doesnt divine law reflect divine will and isnt the discovery and fulfillment of divine will one of the underlying objectives of most religions?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Right now those are trumped by sex other people are having. A future prophet may decide otherwise.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Sorry, thisxphone isn't working, I'll redo it later.
[ February 01, 2011, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No. This is wrong. That is not what people are saying.
I believe they mean it when they say it, katharina, but when you examine how often God gets invoked with respect to other things that, according to Christian lights particularly would clearly be upsetting, I'm afraid it just doesn't stand up.
Unless the divine law against gays shackin' up and callin' it marriage is a much more important divine law than other divine laws, which isn't a stance I think many Christians would seriously commit to.
--------
quote:for not liking when folks talk about divine law you just said a mouthful about it. doesnt divine law reflect divine will and isnt the discovery and fulfillment of divine will one of the underlying objectives of most religions?
Well, cap, by all means let your pursuit of a pithy one liner permit you to avoid the entirety of the other points addressed. There aren't words for that sort of behavior, no sir. Setting aside the pretty obvious fact that my beef isn't with people who talk about it, but rather people who talk about it as though it should have weight in legislating.
Those other points being: if the 'discovery and fulfillment of divine will' is one of the underlying objectives of most religions, why is suddenly, as kmbboots says, this one 'divine law' - not that it's a universally accepted divine law by any means (but let's not let that stop us from behaving, in secular terms, as though it was, right?) that we focus on?
If religious people are going to be concerned with divine law and the discovery and fulfillment of them, they have to be consistently concerned with it, else lay themselves open quite fairly to charges of hypocrisy and of being interested in other things when they start making talk about divine law.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I think that was the point that Scott was making. For Mormons, right now, it is the most important thing. Or at least been declared to be so.
You and I might find that bizarre, but they don't need our approval.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
There's a mildly amusing joke to be made here about SSM and not needing approval in conducting one's own affairs...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I believe they mean it when they say it, katharina, but when you examine how often God gets invoked with respect to other things that, according to Christian lights particularly would clearly be upsetting, I'm afraid it just doesn't stand up.
You not believing what they are saying is true is NOT the same thing as them being dishonest when they are saying it.
Speaking of charity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You not believing what they are saying is true is NOT the same thing as them being dishonest when they are saying it.
That's not what I said. Again.
"I believe they mean it when they say it, katharina..."
------
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What they mean is, "It's a personal opinion I don't want you to be able to object to."
No. It isn't what they mean.
You disagree concerning what is going on, but that's not what you said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Immorality is the obstacle lots of our leaders are pointing at as our generation's particular devil.
I totally read this as "Immortality", I was like, "Oh man, what Ensign magazine is Scott reading that I missed!?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, katharina, I'm perfectly aware it's not what they literally mean, or what they intend to mean. It is what I said, though, given that I said they are mistaken about their own beliefs. It is possible for that to happen.
Why to I believe they're mistaken about their own beliefs? By an examination of other 'divine laws' and the interest in having them be supported by secular law. It's pretty straightforward.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:they are mistaken about their own beliefs. It is possible for that to happen.
Maybe a better way of putting this is that they have multiple beliefs that conflict with one another. So it's not that they don't believe that divine law is important - just that they are giving more weight to the primacy of divine law in this context in order to justify a given conclusion while at the same time giving less weight to other relevant concepts like "free agency", a commitment to secular government, etc. which may weigh more heavily in other contexts.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Does anyone believe that a law against a behavior destroys a person's ability to choose that behavior?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Does anyone believe that a law against a behavior destroys a person's ability to choose that behavior?
When the behavior in question is "entering into a legally binding marriage contract with person of same sex", Yes, absolutely. Laws against that behavior destroy a person's ability to make that choice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rak,
So you aren't saying they are dishonest. You're saying they are too stupid to know what they mean.
Not actually better.
It would better, when lecturing about having charity, to actually have charity and respect for those with whom you are disagreeing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At least when I was refering to "charity" I was using in the sense of helping those less fortunate - giving to the poor, taking care of the sick-rather than the more colloquial usage.
That said, I think that Rakeesh's interpretation is pretty "charitable".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why to I believe they're mistaken about their own beliefs? By an examination of other 'divine laws' and the interest in having them be supported by secular law. It's pretty straightforward.
They're not mistaken about their own beliefs; it's hard to mistake something that is self-generated.
They may not have a complete understanding of the doctrine of the organization that they claim to be adherents for, though. They may not know the mind of God as completely as they feel they do. They might be wrong.
Rabbit:
That's true; I don't think I would have called that particular act a "behavior," though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Right now those are trumped by sex other people are having. A future prophet may decide otherwise.
Yes. Like I said, when someone is having a heart attack, for the moment you don't worry about their breast cancer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit:
That's true; I don't think I would have called that particular act a "behavior," though.
To the best of my recollection, it IS the ONLY act we are discussing making legal or illegal. Which was my point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My post was in response to this:
quote:they are giving more weight to the primacy of divine law in this context in order to justify a given conclusion while at the same time giving less weight to other relevant concepts like "free agency"
I don't know that the concept of free agency is denigrated by this law, or any law. I dunno-- it doesn't quite fit my conception of what agency entails.
To put it another way: if you take away my freedom to vote, I don't think you've affected my agency. You've affected my rights; but I'm not sure that all possible actions need be available to an individual in order for that individual to retain a full complement of agency.
So I don't accept that opposition to SSM, expressed through legitimate legal channels, equals giving less weight to the idea of free agency.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So you aren't saying they are dishonest. You're saying they are too stupid to know what they mean.
And no, that's not what I'm saying either. Being mistaken =/ stupid, but please feel free to assert whatever opinions grant the right to the most outrage. I'm also not looking for a fight with you, as this conversation appears sure to be building into.
quote:It would better, when lecturing about having charity, to actually have charity and respect for those with whom you are disagreeing.
Actually, I wasn't lecturing about charity, that was incidental. Case in point. See, I think, "You're (general 'you') mistaken about these belief sets you hold," is a pretty charitable opinion to hold, particularly when held up against another potential outlook, "You're (again, general you) homophobic and despise homosexuals."
--------------
quote:They're not mistaken about their own beliefs; it's hard to mistake something that is self-generated.
I don't think it's hard to be mistaken about the motivation for doing something though, do you?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't know that the concept of free agency is denigrated by this law, or any law. I dunno-- it doesn't quite fit my conception of what agency entails.
I think that any time you create law for the purpose of curtailing a behavior that you oppose you are attempting to impinge on agency. Any time you make something harder to do you are decreasing the opportunity for someone else to make an independent decision to do - or not do - it.
That's not necessarily a *bad* thing on its own, but it's still a thing.
quote:They're not mistaken about their own beliefs; it's hard to mistake something that is self-generated.
It's actually pretty easy. We commonly generate post-hoc justifications for conclusions already reached. Because they are post-hoc justifications, they aren't actually the reason we hold those conclusions - i.e. we are mistaken about what we believe. This becomes clear to others when we don't use the same justifications for other situations where they might apply.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It depends on who is judging the motivation. I am much more likely to misjudge someone else's motivations than I am to misjudge my own. I guess that I trust that people know what they're talking about when they talk about themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We commonly generate post-hoc justifications for conclusions already reached. Because they are post-hoc justifications, they aren't actually the reason we hold those conclusions - i.e. we are mistaken about what we believe. This becomes clear to others when we don't use the same justifications for other situations where they might apply.
They're not actually mistaken about what they believe, though. They may be mistaken about WHY they believe what they believe, but that's different from the actual belief.
For the sake of utility, I'm not terribly interested in someone's subconscious reasons for their belief. It's hard enough to talk about an individual's conscious rationale.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's certainly true that I may very possibly be mistaken when I speculate as to the motivations of large groups of other people, Scott. I'll certainly grant that. But I'm not just guessing-there are a host of other factors, like MattP says-I can look at very similar situations which ought to use similar standards but very clearly don't and see that something is missing and compare differences and draw conclusions, and then see what's different in terms of rhetoric and politics, that sort of thing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's certainly true that I may very possibly be mistaken when I speculate as to the motivations of large groups of other people, Scott. I'll certainly grant that. But I'm not just guessing-there are a host of other factors, like MattP says-I can look at very similar situations which ought to use similar standards but very clearly don't and see that something is missing and compare differences and draw conclusions, and then see what's different in terms of rhetoric and politics, that sort of thing.
To be clear, you're asserting that when someone says, "I believe it is God's will that homosexuals should be prevented from marrying," you can perform the logistical analysis you stated above, and then turn and say to them,
"No you don't. You don't believe that at all."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, that's not what I'm asserting. Not quite. I'm asserting, "God's will in governing human affairs isn't as important in governing human affairs as you're suggesting it is, has always been, etc."
I absolutely believe them, believe they mean it, when they say, "This is God's will..." I rarely believe someone when they go on to say, "And that's deeply important to me, and we ought to do something about it," except when we're talking about a cause celeb. Such as SSM.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Not to cause trouble (well, OK, maybe I am ) but back when Mormons practiced polygamy, wasn't that a form of same-sex marriage? Sure, there was a husband involved--but if he has five or six wives, those wives were also married to each other. Just saying.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So, Ron. Why is it that saving the lives of believers with cancer would make God vulnerable to the charge of bribery, but saving believers from meteor strikes doesn't open him to that same charge?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Destineer, while I am not qualified to set forth all the features and limits of Divine Justice, it seems likely that God will show favor as much as He can, without leaving Himself open to being accused of bribing people to be faithful to Him.
If he helps even a few people, isn't that a sort of bribery? You're saying that joining the community of the faithful reduces my chances of dying in a natural disaster. Isn't that (among other things) a way of giving me a worldly incentive to believe? What more would it take for this to count as a bribe?
quote:Will being faithful to God ensure that you never suffer calamity? No. Again, that would leave God open to the charge that He was bribing people to be faithful to Him.
Why is that? If you always protect your friends from harm, does that leave you open to the charge that you're bribing people to be your friends?
That's not what I'd call bribery, it's just being a good guy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
That is only necessarily true if saving people is the only ultimate good.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
Yeah, well, I'm trying to keep things on point and work within a framework like Ron's, to show him that what he's saying doesn't make sense even granting his own assumptions.
Obviously he doesn't think that those without faith deserve God's protection, so that argument is a non-starter.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Not to cause trouble (well, OK, maybe I am ) but back when Mormons practiced polygamy, wasn't that a form of same-sex marriage? Sure, there was a husband involved--but if he has five or six wives, those wives were also married to each other. Just saying.
I'm not seeing it. Would you say Hagar and Sarah were married to each other?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
I'm curious-- Mormonism gets by this by saying 1) God is not omnipotent; 2) His purpose is not to spare us pain, but to make us like Jesus Christ-- suffering and joy are therefore necessary parts of our mortal experience.
How do you answer the problem of pain?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would you say Hagar and Sarah were married to each other?
It would explain a few things. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Sure, there was a husband involved--but if he has five or six wives, those wives were also married to each other.
No they were not. Each wife was married to the husband. The wives were never married to each other. It's the husband was a multi-outlet power strip and the wives were different appliances. Each appliance is plugged into the strip but no two appliances are plugged in to each other. (please do not try to extend this analogy any further, please).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would you say Hagar and Sarah were married to each other?
It would explain a few things.
Ha! That it would.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbit, literal LOL. Had to show my coworker, who laughed as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: So Hagar was like a space heater, crowding out all the other appliances? Therefore Abraham shooed her away so as to avoid a fuse blowing?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So much for the transitive property of marriage.
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
I'm curious-- Mormonism gets by this by saying 1) God is not omnipotent; 2) His purpose is not to spare us pain, but to make us like Jesus Christ-- suffering and joy are therefore necessary parts of our mortal experience.
How do you answer the problem of pain?
There's a really lovely book by C.S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain that helped sort that out to me. Basically, the crux of the argument is that although God is omnipotent, we're not made in a way to understand all of Him, so He has to work within the means that we can understand. In order to have free will, we have to have the ability to cause pain, and pain must exist in the universe.
Another argument I've heard (though not one I subscribe to) is that the Earth is supposed to be full of suffering because it has to test those to find those worthy to ascend to Heaven. This was told to me by a Catholic, but I'm not sure that's what all Catholics believe, it might be just that one person. But it's another perspective.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I loved your analogy to the multi-outlet power strip, Rabbit. Not that I mean anything serious about bringing polygamy into this discussion, but if the wives were only married to their husband, what was their relationship to each other? Wife-in-law?
This reminds me of the lecture some experts on the Chinese pictograph language gave in college years ago. A stick figure of a man with a stick figure of a woman on a grid that represented a garden together collectively mean "marriage." The very same collection of figures but with a second stick figure for a woman added, represented the word "unhappiness."
Destineer, as usual, you failed to grasp my point, or else deliberately chose to misrepresent it. What I said was that if we in an official act directly defy the authority of the Creator to define what marriage--which He instituted--means, that is something that He cannot overlook, and He cannot in justice continue to give us His special favor and protect us from the cosmic shooting gallery the earth happens to frequent presently.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna2112:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
I'm curious-- Mormonism gets by this by saying 1) God is not omnipotent; 2) His purpose is not to spare us pain, but to make us like Jesus Christ-- suffering and joy are therefore necessary parts of our mortal experience.
How do you answer the problem of pain?
There's a really lovely book by C.S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain that helped sort that out to me. Basically, the crux of the argument is that although God is omnipotent, we're not made in a way to understand all of Him, so He has to work within the means that we can understand. In order to have free will, we have to have the ability to cause pain, and pain must exist in the universe.
Another argument I've heard (though not one I subscribe to) is that the Earth is supposed to be full of suffering because it has to test those to find those worthy to ascend to Heaven. This was told to me by a Catholic, but I'm not sure that's what all Catholics believe, it might be just that one person. But it's another perspective.
Hey, Anna. Welcome to Hatrack. You're wrong.
The problem I have with Lewis' argument as presented here is that if God is omnipotent, then he could have made us able to have free will and understand Him without needing to subject us to pain.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Destineer, as usual, you failed to grasp my point, or else deliberately chose to misrepresent it. What I said was that if we in an official act directly defy the authority of the Creator to define what marriage--which He instituted--means, that is something that He cannot overlook, and He cannot in justice continue to give us His special favor and protect us from the cosmic shooting gallery the earth happens to frequent presently.
You began by saying that. Then when I asked why, if he's going to do us the favor of protecting against meteors, he doesn't also do us the favor of protecting us against diseases, you said because protecting us against disease would leave him open to charges of bribery (because he heaps too many benefits on his believers).
Then I asked, why does protection from meteors not count as bribery, when protection from disease would count? That's the question you haven't yet answered.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:This reminds me of the lecture some experts on the Chinese pictograph language gave in college years ago. A stick figure of a man with a stick figure of a woman on a grid that represented a garden together collectively mean "marriage." The very same collection of figures but with a second stick figure for a woman added, represented the word "unhappiness."
I'm unsure what character he said represented unhappiness but I have an idea of which one he was using for marriage.
While there are definitely characters that indicate their meaning by the picture they represent, those characters represent around 4% of the total language. There are far more characters where the radicals have no relation whatsoever to the meaning and they exist as an indicator of how to pronounce the character. I'm not saying your picto expert was wrong, but I could not find any character with two female radicals, a male radical, and a field, let alone one that indicates some sort of unhappiness.
I only suggest caution as there are a few gospel enthusiasts who look at Chinese characters and try to connect them to the scriptures. While one cannot prove there is absolutely no connection, many Christians believe God might have revealed the gospel to many groups of people around the world, there is *no* evidence that affirmatively links them. So again, caution.
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ]Hey, Anna. Welcome to Hatrack. You're wrong.
The problem I have with Lewis' argument as presented here is that if God is omnipotent, then he could have made us able to have free will and understand Him without needing to subject us to pain. [/QB]
Thanks for the welcome
I think basically it comes down to the fact that if you trust that God loves us and is omnipotent, then this world, with all its problems, must be better than any alternative. Even if it doesn't make sense from the inside, it must make sense if you're God. It's like the metaphor of God as a parent: Children don't understand why they can't eat dessert all the time, but their parents do. In the same way, maybe we can't understand why this world is better than a utopia. Love isn't always the same thing as kindness, and I think that most Christian denominations would agree with your point about God wanting us to be like Jesus Christ, because Christ was a perfect human being.
I know it's a sucky answer... it seems like all religious arguments boil down to, "basically, based on my experience, I believe it is so." To be honest, it's one of those things that I take as a matter of faith, that God loves us and is omnipotent, but that we can't understand Him and the reason why the world is the way it is.
I was also wondering about your comment about God not being omnipotent. Does Mormonism believe that there are certain laws God has to follow? If God isn't omnipotent, then isn't He not a God?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't think I've heard anyone claim that Zeus, Odin, Ra or Vishnu were omnipotent. It seems to me that's something you monotheistic types tacked onto religion. I could be wrong though, comparative religion isn't something I've ever paid much attention to.
I would also like to point out that atheism has an excellent answer to the problem of pain .
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna2112: I think basically it comes down to the fact that if you trust that God loves us and is omnipotent, then this world, with all its problems, must be better than any alternative.
This brings up the question as to why alternatives where reconciliation with God are assured for all after death, and nobody is left to suffer for all eternity for remaining secular, are not used and this system, according to the bible, is.
---
quote:Because the vibe that I often get (apologies if I'm totally off-base and addressing an opinion that doesn't really exist) is that people who describe homosexuality as a lifestyle are imagining something quite hedonistic, a whirl of parties and casual sex. There certainly are gays who live like this, but then there are also straights who live like this.
I'm delighted by this. I am, absolutely, part of the heterosexual lifestyle. If I keep pointing out that no-sex-before-marriage religious laws are outdated, dying, and good riddance, can I be part of the heterosexual agenda, too?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I don't think I've heard anyone claim that Zeus, Odin, Ra or Vishnu were omnipotent. It seems to me that's something you monotheistic types tacked onto religion. I could be wrong though, comparative religion isn't something I've ever paid much attention to.
I would also like to point out that atheism has an excellent answer to the problem of pain .
Zues I'm fairly certain to legend was omnipotant short of one thing, he couldn't go against The Fates.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm sure this question is less than original, but how did all these restrictions on God's godhood get set up in the first place?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Nothing is more horrifying a concept, even Azathoth isn't as abhorent in concept.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The problem I have with Lewis' argument as presented here is that if God is omnipotent, then he could have made us able to have free will and understand Him without needing to subject us to pain.
Unless "creating free will without pain" is of the same sort of logically impossible category as "creating a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Unless "creating free will without pain" is of the same sort of logically impossible category as "creating a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it".
Two questions, and I realize you may not have the answers:
First, is there pain in heaven?
Second, is there free will in heaven?
If the answer to both is yes, then it seems to meld with your answer that free will requires pain of some sort.
If the answer to both is no, then what's so great about free will?
If the answers are mixed up in any other way, it seems to contradict your statement.
But I don't follow the boards as often as I used to, so maybe this is a non-sequitor and you don't even believe in heaven anyway. So if the question makes no sense, feel free to ignore it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't have the answers to those two questions. The "free will requires pain" argument is from C.S. Lewis, and I don't exactly agree with it, but I do think he could make a reasonable argument that free will logically entails pain of some kind.
My personal view would be better put this way: A world with pain is more meaningful than a world without it, because good is less meaningful without the contrast of evil. Heaven, as traditionally described, is clearly a far more pleasant place to live in than our present life. But I think pleasantness is not the highest good. The pain of our world may allow our lives to be meaningful in a way they could not be if we simply existed in heaven without pain or evil.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:First, is there pain in heaven?
Second, is there free will in heaven?
In Mormon cosmology, the answer to both of these is yes.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Zues [sic] I'm fairly certain to legend was omnipotant [sic] short of one thing, he couldn't go against The Fates.
In my understanding that Zeus and the rest of the Greek pantheon had a very long and difficult fight to overthrow the Titans (and especially Cronus), even needing the help of the Cyclopes (and others) to do so.
That would seem to indicate that he couldn't snap his fingers to make Cronus eliminated from existence, which would be implied by omnipotence. That is unless he grew into his omnipotence later.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I don't think I've heard anyone claim that Zeus, Odin, Ra or Vishnu were omnipotent. It seems to me that's something you monotheistic types tacked onto religion. I could be wrong though, comparative religion isn't something I've ever paid much attention to.
I would also like to point out that atheism has an excellent answer to the problem of pain .
None of the Hindu gods are omnipotent, according to a traditional Vedic understanding of them. Historically, actually, worship was a way of forcing the gods to do something for you - if you (or the priest you hired) did the right rituals and worshiped the right way, things would happen the way you wanted. While few Hindus now would agree with this perspective (at least so baldly stated), you can still see the effects in many Hindu rituals - to a Western eye, a lot of the requirements and steps in worshiping can seem very arbitrary.
When you get into a more monotheistic/pantheistic interpretation of Hinduism - basically anything above the level of folk worship and post-Upanishads onwards - it gets a little more fuzzy. For most schools of thought, it tends to be less like God can do anything, and more like everything is God. But there are certainly some Hindus who would agree that God (however they define it or whoever they name as such) is omnipotent.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:First, is there pain in heaven?
Second, is there free will in heaven?
In Mormon cosmology, the answer to both of these is yes.
I'd like to go one step further and say that there is also sadness in heaven. The Bible has some examples of God feeling sadness, anger, and other feelings.
In other words.....Being lobotomized is not a requirement to enter heaven.
quote:Zues I'm fairly certain to legend was omnipotant short of one thing, he couldn't go against The Fates.
Or Kratos, of course. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: In other words.....Being lobotomized is not a requirement to enter heaven.
Do you expect to have a brain in heaven at all? I thought you were supposed to be pure spirit or energy or something.
With your personality on earth dependent on the chemistry and physical structure of the brain, what in heaven is supposed to represent "you"? Do you get a perfect copy of your brain at its peak, or a simulation of such? Does your "spirit" behave and think and feel just like your brain does when it is not under the influence of drugs or a brain injury? If you die when you are old and your personality has changed due to changes in your brain, do you get your young brain back in heaven? What if your young brain had you being a selfish jerk while your old brain was a nice guy? If someone dies as a child with an undeveloped brain, do they get an adult brain in heaven?
Not trying to pounce, but I honestly don't know what theists would answer to the above.
It seems most of my discussions with theists here have them admitting that the brain is responsible for the bulk of your personality, but claiming that there is some non-physical "soul" that also plays a part. But can that non-physical part do the entire work of the brain in heaven? If so, why can't it do so here on earth after a traumatic brain injury that changes your personality completely?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
I'm curious-- Mormonism gets by this by saying 1) God is not omnipotent; 2) His purpose is not to spare us pain, but to make us like Jesus Christ-- suffering and joy are therefore necessary parts of our mortal experience.
How do you answer the problem of pain?
It is complicated but it starts with the idea that God isn't some separate "being" but is with and through and part of everything and everything is part of God, including us and that we still have a lot of work to do. We are in the process of creating and being created not done with it. If we want a world that works better, we (the part of God that is us) had better get to work on that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Do you expect to have a brain in heaven at all? I thought you were supposed to be pure spirit or energy or something.
Mormons believe in a physical resurrection. When that occurs you will have a "glorified" body which resembles, in some manner, your current physical body.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Weren't Christ's most vehement rebukes aimed towards the hypocrites?
As I recall, Jesus's harshest words were for for those who were most concerned with rules other people were breaking, with those who took a legalistic rather than a loving approach to God's law.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
He also got angry at trees on occasion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My deal with pain is that it is part and parcel of free will. Want no pain? Can't have free will. They go together. I value my freedom more than I would a pain-free existence.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:My deal with pain is that it is part and parcel of free will. Want no pain? Can't have free will. They go together. I value my freedom more than I would a pain-free existence.
I suspect that if you gave a bunch of scientists a crap-load of funding and removed ethical constraints, you could create a human being that does not feel emotional or physical pain within a few generations.
Would that person lack free will? I don't see how they would any more than you or I.
(Note: I don't actually believe in free will exists in any meaningful way, but am interested in the way these two things seem so linked to you guys.)
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Mormons believe in a physical resurrection. When that occurs you will have a "glorified" body which resembles, in some manner, your current physical body.
Yeah, a lot of my objections to Christian theology don't really apply to Mormons (original sin, an omnipotent God, the holy trinity, God no longer talking to prophets, etc).
There are other things about LDS theology that don't sit well with me, but they are often not the same things as with the other varieties of Christianity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:My deal with pain is that it is part and parcel of free will. Want no pain? Can't have free will. They go together. I value my freedom more than I would a pain-free existence.
I suspect that if you gave a bunch of scientists a crap-load of funding and removed ethical constraints, you could create a human being that does not feel emotional or physical pain within a few generations.
Would that person lack free will? I don't see how they would any more than you or I.
(Note: I don't actually believe in free will exists in any meaningful way, but am interested in the way these two things seem so linked to you guys.)
I'm interested in this world, not a hypothetical where pain doesn't exist in the first place. It does exist, and it exists now. Saying under a different circumstances it wouldn't exist doesn't change the present circumstances, where they are inextricably linked.
They are inextricably linked because the source of what seems like the vast majority pain comes from 1) human choices, and 2) mortal bodies. And a little bit 3) opportunity cost.
Pain from opportunity cost - not everyone can win the race. If you and your friend love the same person, only one of you can get a monogamous relationship with him. If you choose one life, you can't choose a different life, and that different life will go on without you. All these things can be painful, and they are all linked to opportunity cost.
Pain from mortal bodies - the dream of the fountain of youth and the elixir of healing never dies. It hasn't happened yet. Unless and until, bodies breaking down and working wrong causes pain, both to the body owner and to the people who love him/her.
But the last: human choices. Most of pain comes from the consequences of your own or someone else's choices. We can choose the action, but the consequences of it. Everything from war to assualt to gossip can cause pain, and all of it is from someone's choice, sometimes your own. As long as choosing to pull the trigger means the person the gun is pointed at gets shot, the choice to pull the trigger will cause pain.
This is all very Worthing Saga, which is, not coincidentally, my favorite Card novel now.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It seems most of my discussions with theists here have them admitting that the brain is responsible for the bulk of your personality, but claiming that there is some non-physical "soul" that also plays a part. But can that non-physical part do the entire work of the brain in heaven?
I think in Christianity speculation about how things operate in heaven is generally considered just that - speculation. It's more concerned about how we ought to behave in this life, rather than how the afterlife works. So, I don't think you can find a definitive answer to a question like that. My guess would be that personalities in heaven are fundamentally different than they are on earth - or maybe personality in the way we think of it doesn't exist there at all.
But as MattP pointed out, the Christian denominations who believe the physical body is in the afterlife don't have an issue with this at all.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I suspect that if you gave a bunch of scientists a crap-load of funding and removed ethical constraints, you could create a human being that does not feel emotional or physical pain within a few generations.
Would that person lack free will? I don't see how they would any more than you or I.
And important question would be... Would this person always be at the same constant level of happiness, no matter what happened to him or what decisions he made?
Or would this person be more or less happy depending on his situation? And if so, is being less happy different from pain?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Considering that an inability to feel pain is almost certainly fatal at a relatively early age, I'd go with no, the person would likely not be happy.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
In my evolutionary psych class yesterday, we talked for a bit about a man who was studied who had permanently lost the "emotion" part of his brain. he was completely unable to feel anything. As a consequence of this, he was no longer able to make decisions. Big or small, didn't matter. He had no opinions. Even choosing what to eat at a restaurant amounted to closing his eyes and pointing to a random dish. He could still lay out every option, as rationally as anyone, but if you asked him what he should do, or what he wants to do, or what the best choice is, he hadn't the foggiest idea what you were talking about.
He was never "happy" in the sense that we think of happy--but he felt no emotional pain, either. he was just... numb. I have no idea what the theological implications of this are, but I felt like sharing.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, I will try to make it clear to you what I am trying to say. God does not protect the earth against destruction as a reward, nor will He allow it to be subjected to cataclysmic disaster as a punishment. What He must do in response to a direct act of offiical rebellion to his authority is something different.
Reward and punishment figure in to some extent on an individual basis. But this is balanced by the need to avoid overtly making it look like He is bribing people to be faithful to Him. There are, of course, the natural consequences of wise behavior. God does allow "the effective fervent prayer of a righteous man" to "avail much" (see James 5:16) in interceding for others and in praying for healing for others (especially in connection with the annointing ceremony--v. 15). But it is an entirely different matter where a direct challenge to God's authority as Creator is being made not by one individual, but by a nation, and especially by the nation that is the cultural leader and example for the whole world.
What God can do for individuals is influenced TO SOME EXTENT by their behavior and by their faith. But the protection that God continues to give to humanity as a species must be directly affected by how humanity relates to its Creator. To make a direct, official challenge to God's authority as Creator to ordain and define what marriage means, must unavoidably result in making an increased separation between all humanity and God. The Creator must back off, and must withdraw a large measure of His special protection to the species as a whole. Otherwise He would cross the line between being mercifully, patiently forgiving; and being indulgently tolerant of evil. God must always be just while still being merciful. He will not sacrifice either one.
That is the choice He made by His own free choice. This is the kind of God that He chooses to be. When God was in Christ accepting responsibility for all the sins of mankind throughout all time, so that Christ "was made to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21), He chose to accept the possibility of suffering eternal harm if things did not work out sufficiently. In the very midst of this display of the ultimate expression of mercy, God at the same time refused to give in and embrace sin. He refused to set aside Justice (the Law that identifies us as sinners--1 John 3:4), but instead saw to it that the punishment for sin was paid, the sentence against humanity was carried out--in the New Man, the New Adam, in whom the whole human race is now comprised.
When Jesus cried out on the Cross, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34), He was not merely quoting the opening words of Psalms 22. He was expressing the pain He felt as for the first time He felt a separation between Himself and the Father, a separation that had never before existed in the heart of Deity. Though Christ Himself is fully eternal and self-existent (it was He who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, the Father has never manifested Himself directly on earth), and thus could not die as we die, He could lapse into a state of unconsciousness from which He might never awaken. This is what Deity risked in Christ on Calvary.
The fact that God chose to turn away His face from the Son at Calvary, shows to us that God has truly and fully and forever chosen not to embrace evil, or injustice. He demonstrated mercy and justice coming together, without either being set aside. This is an assurance to all intelligent beings inhabit the universe, that God will never choose to turn toward evil. He does have the power of choice; He created freewill. But He has shown us what His choice is. In that we can rest secure for eternity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Considering that an inability to feel pain is almost certainly fatal at a relatively early age, I'd go with no, the person would likely not be happy.
It's a real, though rare, condition and is terribly tragic.
quote: Reward and punishment figure in to some extent on an individual basis. But this is balanced by the need to avoid overtly making it look like He is bribing people to be faithful to Him.
He's all powerful. Why can't he protect the faithful from disease and, through his completely unlimited power, make it look as if he isn't bribing anyone?
quote:What God can do for individuals is influenced TO SOME EXTENT by their behavior and by their faith. But the protection that God continues to give to humanity as a species must be directly affected by how humanity relates to its Creator. To make a direct, official challenge to God's authority as Creator to ordain and define what marriage means, must unavoidably result in making an increased separation between all humanity and God. The Creator must back off, and must withdraw a large measure of His special protection to the species as a whole. Otherwise He would cross the line between being mercifully, patiently forgiving; and being indulgently tolerant of evil. God must always be just while still being merciful. He will not sacrifice either one.
The motivations you ascribe to God here are morally wrong. You're talking about collective punishment. Even though there are many people in the United States whose obedience has never flagged, the just thing is for God to withhold his protection from the entire country? How is that fair to the people who haven't failed him?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, you forget we are a race of sinners, who have all separated ourselves from God. We are born separated from God. Not completely, or we would not live at all; but largely. This is why we do not live forever. We are subject to disease, to accident and injury, we age and we die. God never meant for any of this to happen. But these are the inevitable consequences of being separated from God, who is the One and Only Original Source of Life and Health.
It has been said that the thing that first caused Adam and Eve to grieve, was seeing the first dying leaves falling from the gigantic trees of Eden, because it meant that death had entered the world--because of them.
God has attacked the problem of sin and death at the root, by seeking to heal the separation that has come between our race and our Creator. Since freewill is involved, we must make informed choices every step of the way. To just give us everything on a silver platter, might make us self-sufficient and arrogant and lead us to take everything for granted, and thus wind up greatly delaying the time when our relationship with our Creator can be made whole. Every time God considers whether to answer a prayer for healing, or deliverance, or any kind of help, He must weigh whether this would help to strengthen faith, or whether it might actually serve to delay the time when His would-be faithful people will be ready for Jesus to return. Sometimes this depends upon the people involved themselves, how they would react to blessings.
There is a member of my church who has three daughters. One of them was diagnosed with type I diabetes. But this daughter happened to be the one who was very focused and attentive to detail, and could readily handle the challenges of balancing sugar and insulin. My friend confessed once that it was the surely the mercy of God that diabetes fell upon this daughter, because she was the only one who could handle it.
Another church friend has four daughters. One is very smart. One is very spiritual. The younger two are wavering between the pull of the world, and the pull of what they have learned through their church. It was the daughter who is spiritual who recently suffered a car accident, where her left shoulder was crushed, and her spine and hip damaged. This happened only a few months after she passed her state boards and qualified to work as a registered nurse. She has had several surgeries, and still faces more surgeries. She has numbness in her left arm and wrist--a serious problem indeed for a nurse. She experiences constant pain in her back, because one of the disks was shattered. But she never lets on to anyone who visits her that she is in pain. She is always asking about others, always concerned about others. She keeps her Bible beside her, and always has somethig encouraging to say to people. This is amazing for a young lady, only about 20 years old. Her mother admitted to me that the Lord allowed this to happen to the one of her daughters who could best handle it.
If you are friends with God, then no matter what happens, for good or ill, you know that God is with you. You are aware of His presence. You feel the encouragement that His Spirit gives you. You trust that God will see to it that whatever is ultimately for the best good for you, is what will happen.
Another member of my church has a nine-year-old son who was admitted to the hospital with a blood clot in his brain. Doctors cautioned everyone that the surgery was chancey. He might not survive the operation. The son understood all this fully, and he was peacefully resigned to the Lord's keeping, especially after the pastor and elders of the church came and annointed him and prayed for him, as per James 5:15, 16. The operation was a complete success. Surgeons removed a bloodclot the size of a baseball. Later, doctors said that only a small percentage of patients in such cases survived. The boy says that when he is able, he wants to preach a sermon to the church about his experience. The pastor promised him that he would be allowed.
I know of another case where a woman had two small children, and her husband was diagnosed with leukemia. During his lengthy battle, which including a bone marrow transplant, she became pregnant. I don't wish to judge her, but perhaps she thought that if she had a small infant, God would have to heal her husband. But you cannot manipulate God. Despite everythig, her husband died, and she was left as a single mother to raise three small children. Fortunately the church helped her alot in the ensuing years. But she admitted to me once that she was "angry at God." I wonder what would have happened if God had healed her husband. Would she then have thought she could get away with trying to manipulate God?
Those are just a few of the lessons I have learned in my church about the way that God relates to people and their needs and wishes and how He answers their prayers.
Remember this as well, Destineer: This life is not all there is. This life is a small spark compared to eternal life. God wants us to live forever, at peace with Him, and not just to be happy for a few short years now, and then perish forever. It does not hurt if there is suffering we must endure in this life, if it can serve to lead us to be restored to fellowship with God, so we can live forever. When those who have suffered greatly in this life, even martyrdom, meet in Heaven to compare notes, we are told that they will all conclude, "Heaven was cheap enough!"
[ February 03, 2011, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ugh, why do you think sermons are a good idea?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Orincoro--it is because there is so much that needs to be said, things that are vital, that many here seem not to understand, or else they would not express the unwise things that they say.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron, some questions.
quote:God never meant for any of this to happen
What then did God intend to happen that he did not foresee not happening?
quote:We are born separated from God.
This does not seem to jibe with Jesus being born without sin, and living a perfectly sinless life. Why are we born separated from God, is it really just because? Is God really powerless in that he cannot stop us from beginning life cut off from him? I can understand him allowing us to distance ourselves from him with out choices so that we can learn, but it does not make sense to me that God, who created us, allowed such a fundamental disavantage to remain unchecked. I can certainly accept that an inevitable result of our having free will is sin and death. I can't accept that because of choices Adam and Eve made, every single human being has a sin upon their head. Sins belong to choices we freely make, not circumstances we find ourselves in.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro--it is because there is so much that needs to be said, things that are vital, that many here seem not to understand, or else they would not express the unwise things that they say.
How you think and reason is disturbing to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, so two separate stories of "This horrible ordeal has been weathered pretty good by this one out of many children in this family, therefore, it was the will of the Lord that it happened to that particular sibling!"
Like, not just one, but two.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, Jesus was born not separated from God, because He was God before He allowed Himself to be joined to the inheritance of man. Separation or unity with God is a spiritual reality. In His Spirit, Jesus was not a sinner. The danger was that in taking human nature, with all its appetites and the weaknesses of the flesh that had accummulated over 4,000 years of continual deterioration, Jesus had made Himself very vulnerable. But He withstood every temptation, even the temptations give by Satan in the wilderness, where He was tested over appetite--the very point where our first parents fell. And He never once chose to yield to temptation and separate Himself from His Father.
There are at least two reasons why God does not instantly change our physical natures so we are perfectly sinless at the moment we are converted and give our hearts to Him. (1) We are not yet fully reconciled to God spiritually, and must yet make more choices so that our conversion can become more and more thorough. We must freely choose all the changes that God makes in us. They are miraculously wrought in us; but God will not violate our freedom of choice. He wants love that is genuine from all His creatures, and love is only genuine if it is completely free. (2) God desires to demonstrate that the question of sin and righteousness does not depend upon our physical nature, they depend upon spiritual reality, the reality of faith, and what we freely choose. So it was that despite having the same physical nature we have, Jesus never gave way to sin even in thought. After all, remember that when Adam and Eve fell, they did have perfect physical natures. They chose to doubt God and disobey Him, even though they had the sinless perfection their Creator originally gave them. So also Lucifer, and the other angels who sided with him in heaven, chose to embrace sin and rebel against God, despite being in the perfection of heaven, besides being in the presence of God himself, besides having not just perfect ntures, but angelic natures. As it has been observed, angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. But in Christ, paradise is restored, for He passed over the same ground our first parents did, and He was victorious where they failed, despite the degeneracy of the physical nature. And just as Christ demonstrated, God also wants to be demonstrated in us, that it is faith, not nature, that really matters. Because for all eternity, and for all creatures on our world, and on every other world where there is intelligent life, and even in heaven among the angels, righteousness for the creature will only consist in faith in the perfect righteousness of God. Righteousness is by faith in God, for all and forever.
Thus we will be a continual lessonbook to the universe, and will travel with Christ throughout the cosmos, to tell our stories.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, Orincoro, if you are unable to understand, then you are unable to understand. Your frame of reference is not high enough or deep enough.
"These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:13, 14)
This is the best I can do to explain these things. I am sorry if it is not good enough for everyone.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Fortunately the church helped her alot in the ensuing years.
The church helped her alot? Glad to hear it's doing better. jk
Anyway, I don't feel like I'm getting answers that address the questions and criticisms I posted, so maybe let's call it a day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Samprimary, Orincoro, if you are unable to understand, then you are unable to understand. Your frame of reference is not high enough or deep enough.
Yes. Your stubborn insistence on logical consistency is a personal failing, you two.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, Orincoro, if you are unable to understand, then you are unable to understand. Your frame of reference is not high enough or deep enough.
Like, the weakness of that particular argument should be profoundly evident. Here is an example: I could look at you and convince myself that the Lord's work is evident in you: he saddled you with such an unreasonable mind knowing that you, of anyone, would be the most capable of remaining steadfastly unaware and content of your failures of logical faculty. One less suited to it would have self-awareness of these faults and become depressed. Hallelujah, the lord allowed this condition to befall upon the one who could most comfortably weather it.
Alternately: this is a bunch of convenient positive-bias assurances. Again.
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This brings up the question as to why alternatives where reconciliation with God are assured for all after death, and nobody is left to suffer for all eternity for remaining secular, are not used and this system, according to the bible, is.
I may be reading this wrong, but are you asking why some Christian denominations believe that God doesn't allow everyone into Heaven? Because personally, I believe that anyone who wants to go to Heaven can. That's what Christ's death and resurrection meant: the salvation of humanity. As to the question of why you should even believe in God, if you don't have to in order to enter Heaven, the answer is a) that wanting to go to Heaven isn't something you can do on a whim. If God truly knows all of you, in your good and your bad, then that means that by meeting Him you have to truly want to know yourself and admit all your shortcomings and problems, and some people won't or can't do that. But believing in God in this life helps you to do so. And b) it's a better way of living, and it's good and right to thank Him for this life (which is a gift, even when it feels sucky) and because He wants us to, and you shouldn't question God too much. I hope that's the question you were asking.
As to the question of if there's pain or free will in Heaven, I like the idea of a beatific vision. This is purely speculation, but I think that Heaven allows you to truly understand the Universe and God and everything. *Insert mandatory joke about 42 here*
Please note: I'm not trying to preach, there's a big "I BELIEVE, this may not necessarily be true" in front of all of these statements. I'm by no means an expert on any of this, just putting the ideas out there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:and you shouldn't question God too much
See, this is what gets me. Why not? What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The fact that God chose to turn away His face from the Son at Calvary, shows to us that God has truly and fully and forever chosen not to embrace evil, or injustice. He demonstrated mercy and justice coming together, without either being set aside. This is an assurance to all intelligent beings inhabit the universe, that God will never choose to turn toward evil. He does have the power of choice; He created freewill. But He has shown us what His choice is. In that we can rest secure for eternity.
Compared to all the other things that Christ's suffering and death meant, how is this particular doctrine weighted?
quote:Jesus's harshest words were for for those who were most concerned with rules other people were breaking, with those who took a legalistic rather than a loving approach to God's law.
There are a number of temple merchants who disagree with you.
I think we've had this discussion before: when I find the beam in my eye and remove it, I'm still obligated to help remove the mote in my brother's eye. There is not the sense in that particular sermon that one cannot ever remove the beam; there is every sense that one is expected to correct their life, and help others to come to God.
Jesus' condemned the hypocrite, not the righteous who encouraged sinners toward repentance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:and you shouldn't question God too much
See, this is what gets me. Why not? What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
I agree. Of course, I also think that I've gotten answers from Him, so... Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Jesus's harshest words were for for those who were most concerned with rules other people were breaking, with those who took a legalistic rather than a loving approach to God's law.
There are a number of temple merchants who disagree with you.
I think we've had this discussion before: when I find the beam in my eye and remove it, I'm still obligated to help remove the mote in my brother's eye. There is not the sense in that particular sermon that one cannot ever remove the beam; there is every sense that one is expected to correct their life, and help others to come to God.
Jesus' condemned the hypocrite, not the righteous who encouraged sinners toward repentance.
I'm not sure your logic here really works. In the most famous (I think) example, Jesus tells the crowd that only those without sin can cast stones. He does NOT say "those without the sin of fornication or adultery can cast stones" only those without sin at all.
Therefor, that seems to imply that until you live in absolute perfection, you have not really removed the beam, and are still a hypocrite.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Well, after hearing the answers (or lack of them), people start to leave the church, for one thing...
Think of organized religion like a blockbuster movie. It can be moving or exciting or inspiring or breathtaking or comforting, but usually only as long as you don't poke at the plot holes too much.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Most people who encourage others toward repentance don't do it through the use of literal stones. I think there's an order of magnitude that's important to pay attention to.
Recall also that Jesus commanded his disciples to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. From Paul's writings (at least), there seems to be a good amount of evidence that that process entailed identifying sin, and persuading others to forsake it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Well, after hearing the answers (or lack of them), people start to leave the church, for one thing...
Think of organized religion like a blockbuster movie. It can be moving or exciting or inspiring or breathtaking or comforting, but usually only as long as you don't poke at the plot holes too much.
So Michael Bay would be a baptist preacher, you think?
ETA: ANd I bet Christopher Nolan would be a Scientologist... "It's so uber-complicated and cool!"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Well, after hearing the answers (or lack of them), people start to leave the church, for one thing...
I haven't observed this to be true. I've observed that religious people tend to ask questions about God more than non-religious people. This is what drives the religious to do Bible study, meditation, etc. and that search for answers seems to more often drive people closer to religion rather than father from it.
A key difference, though, is the assumptions that go into finding the answers to those questions, and the assumptions that deterime which questions get asked. People who question God in a certain way (typically when they assume the assumptions of skepticism) often predictably are driven further from religion, while people who question God in other ways may be driven closer to religion. If you operate with the assumption that belief is foolish unless you can get answers to all your questions, then you're going to become disillusioned with the lack of answers. Folks who treat it like religion is on trial tend to end up dissatisfied with religion, whereas folks who treat it like they are a student trying to learn difficult concepts tend to end up more satisfied after the questioning.
So, I don't see the issue as being with asking questions. The downside comes into play only if you approach those questions in certain ways.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That's actually an excellent response to a snarky statement.
There are, however, people who have left the church after starting out as devout believers only wanting more understanding of difficult concepts. *waves*
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Right, religion is for the credulous. And I have some stones to sell you. When I tell you what they do, keep an open mind and don´t approach my claims with skepticism because if you do, you may not buy them!!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Most people who encourage others toward repentance don't do it through the use of literal stones. I think there's an order of magnitude that's important to pay attention to.
Recall also that Jesus commanded his disciples to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. From Paul's writings (at least), there seems to be a good amount of evidence that that process entailed identifying sin, and persuading others to forsake it.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Paul didn't actually know Jesus, did he? It's hard to know that Jesus would necessarily have wanted Paul to be doing exactly what he was doing since Paul ISN'T a Gospel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Most people who encourage others toward repentance don't do it through the use of literal stones. I think there's an order of magnitude that's important to pay attention to.
Recall also that Jesus commanded his disciples to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. From Paul's writings (at least), there seems to be a good amount of evidence that that process entailed identifying sin, and persuading others to forsake it.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Paul didn't actually know Jesus, did he? It's hard to know that Jesus would necessarily have wanted Paul to be doing exactly what he was doing since Paul ISN'T a Gospel.
According to his writings Paul states that he had seen Jesus, and received instructions from him through Ananias.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Paul wrote a lot of good things but, remember, he was writing, not specifically to "posterity" but to certain groups of people with specific issues.He was trying to get the early Christian community - which was Jewish - to accept Greeks and other non-Jews. Getting them to accept non-circumcision and non-adherence to dietary laws was one thing; getting them to accept certain Greek sexual practices was another.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Apostle Paul also said he received instruction directly from the Lord in visions (he had the prophetic gift). Example: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:23-26; NKJV)
Paul himself was certainly not at the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the Communion Service. He was not converted until long after. But this passage in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians is the one most pastors I know of quote when leading out in the Communion Service, because it is so clear in setting forth the sequence of events, and explains the significances of both the the wine and the bread.
kmboots, Paul never at any time advocated that the dietary laws should be disregarded. It was ceremonial observances and feast days that had been fulfilled in Christ that he said were not to be considered obligations any more. Neither did Peter, despite his vision of the sheet let down from heaven (see Acts 10); he himself said that what that dream taught him that he was to call no man unclean (see verse 28). There is no record that Paul, Peter, or any of the other apostles suddenly began eating pork, or shellfish, or spiders, or creeping things of the earth.
[ February 04, 2011, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Paul seemed to do a lot of preaching to non-Jews if that's the case, kmboots.
quote:Paul didn't actually know Jesus, did he? It's hard to know that Jesus would necessarily have wanted Paul to be doing exactly what he was doing since Paul ISN'T a Gospel.
That begs the question: what scriptures are you willing to accept as divinely inspired? How do you determine which has God's stamp of approval, and which do not?
I'm glad we got around to that question; it's something I've been wanting to pose to the forum almost since page 4...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Paul didn't actually know Jesus, did he? It's hard to know that Jesus would necessarily have wanted Paul to be doing exactly what he was doing since Paul ISN'T a Gospel.
To be fair nobody ever met Jesus because he's an amalgam of different people living in different times. Sort of like Dr. Zimmerman, or Santa Claus, or James Bond.
Who knew Jesus is sort of like a game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon... Except if you're born again, I guess your Jesus number reverts to One.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you want, Orincoro, I can introduce you. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm good. Thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Paul seemed to do a lot of preaching to non-Jews if that's the case, kmboots.
quote:Paul didn't actually know Jesus, did he? It's hard to know that Jesus would necessarily have wanted Paul to be doing exactly what he was doing since Paul ISN'T a Gospel.
That begs the question: what scriptures are you willing to accept as divinely inspired? How do you determine which has God's stamp of approval, and which do not?
I'm glad we got around to that question; it's something I've been wanting to pose to the forum almost since page 4...
Of course, Paul was preaching to non-Jews. Even mostly non-Jews. I am not sure why that was a question.*
I think that scripture is inspired by a relationship with the Divine. I also believe that the people who were writing it down (and those who chose what became canon) were people - rooted in a specific time and place and context with their own ideas and brains and wills.
*Edit to add: Imagine Paul preaching to a bunch of Greeks. "Okay, you guys. I think that I can get you in without the painful surgery, and I am working on the bacon, but you are really going to have to shape up on the sex stuff." Or something like that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I hope that Paul knew Jesus. He wrote most of the New Testament, apart from the gospels. His theology forms the basis of Christian theology. We get most of our understanding of Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) from Paul. We get many of the definitive statements about the human nature of Christ from Paul (and most, if we accept the common assumption that Paul wrote Hebrews).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna2112: I may be reading this wrong, but are you asking why some Christian denominations believe that God doesn't allow everyone into Heaven? Because personally, I believe that anyone who wants to go to Heaven can. That's what Christ's death and resurrection meant: the salvation of humanity. As to the question of why you should even believe in God, if you don't have to in order to enter Heaven, the answer is a) that wanting to go to Heaven isn't something you can do on a whim. If God truly knows all of you, in your good and your bad, then that means that by meeting Him you have to truly want to know yourself and admit all your shortcomings and problems, and some people won't or can't do that. But believing in God in this life helps you to do so. And b) it's a better way of living, and it's good and right to thank Him for this life (which is a gift, even when it feels sucky) and because He wants us to, and you shouldn't question God too much. I hope that's the question you were asking.
It is, pretty much. It relates specifically to those who accept a teaching that if you don't beg forgiveness from Jesus Christ specifically while alive in a world where all claims to the divinity of a guy named Jesus Christ are credulous and necessarily require faith in the concept, usually one impressed from early life in a religious household that's specifically christian, to be at all reliable.
In fact, it could relate more broadly to those who don't specifically think that you have to beg Jesus Christ specifically for forgiveness, but either way, the way your life turned out and the choices you made assure that a significant chunk (in certain denominations, it's assured to be most people on earth; in other cultlike denominations such as the Jehova's Witnesses, it's virtually all humans on earth) of all human beings born onto this earth going to hell.
This, with little or no regard for the conditions they were born into that could have assured that there was virtually no chance that they would satisfy the criteria for entry into heaven.
On the surface, it is arbitrary and ridiculous. When you get into the meat of it and study it in depth, it's still arbitrary and ridiculous. Most of the defenses of these ideas boil down crudely to the point of giving God a nearly schizophrenic mentality towards the salvation of his creation. Others insist that the claims cannot be considered credulous, and that the divinity is only not evident to those who 'purposefully turn away' from realizing the truth. Or that there is some historical event which makes the claim of X faith being assuredly true non-credulous; we just did this with the use of the mythological tale of the mass revelation being asserted as proof of the mythologies which incorporate the God and holy book of that tale.
It does not apply to the message that other denominations have, which I largely find positive — and which don't portray God as, essentially, capricious, vengeful, and immorally neglectful of his creation — where there is a path after death for the unrepentant or ignorant sinner towards salvation, time where all lessons unlearned in life can and will be learned, and you don't have to have been saved in a specific way or an obedient part of a specific denomination of a specific religion in order to have (a) avoided hell for all eternity or (b) been disqualified for the bestest best available tier of the afterlife, and get a runner-up heaven instead.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I hope that Paul knew Jesus.
You are certainly aware that Paul was not a follower of Jesus until well after the crucifixion. In fact, the New Testament is quite explicit that he was a persecutor of Christians and participated in the stoning of Steven. If Paul knew Jesus, it was either as his enemy or post resurrection.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, I believe that heaven is the condition of being in a specific relationship with God and that God will do everything to be in that relationship with us except force it on us.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Samprimary, I believe that heaven is the condition of being in a specific relationship with God and that God will do everything to be in that relationship with us except force it on us.
That's one of the better descriptions I've heard of heaven in awhile Kate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Heaven is a beach house in the caribbean inhabited by all your best friends, and free burrito supremes for eternity, and you never get fat.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That begs the question: what scriptures are you willing to accept as divinely inspired? How do you determine which has God's stamp of approval, and which do not?
The cynic in me would say anything that keeps the Bible internally consistent and reinforces it, and the mythology it describes, is automatically "divinely inspired," while anything that weakens the book's truthiness with inconvenient histories or unfulfilled prophecies is automatically labeled apocryphal. But that's just me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Samprimary, I believe that heaven is the condition of being in a specific relationship with God and that God will do everything to be in that relationship with us except force it on us.
Sure, but what matters is if those tools are available after death, where, ostensibly, those non-evident matters of faith and competing false religions can be cleared up right-quick.
And, also importantly, since only one religion can be the correct one (if any), if god picks up a yanomamo tribesman who was never going to be a part of that religion or perhaps even never even heard of it, can they work their way up to everyone else's heaven, or do they have to fly coach to a runner-up heaven? "You don't go to hell, but only the best heaven is available to our devout followers!" is a pretty common thing in religion these days.
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [qb]
quote:What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Well, after hearing the answers (or lack of them), people start to leave the church, for one thing...
I haven't observed this to be true. I've observed that religious people tend to ask questions about God more than non-religious people. This is what drives the religious to do Bible study, meditation, etc. and that search for answers seems to more often drive people closer to religion rather than father from it.
I didn't mean this completely seriously, and now it's morphed into one of the major talking points. My bad? What I meant was that at a certain point, it all becomes futile. God's motivations and that sort of thing can only be confusing speculation, at best, I think. But I'm all for asking God questions. I just don't think we can understand all the answers.
[ February 04, 2011, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Anna2112 ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What do you think 'skepticism' is? Of a skeptic, what do you think they are 'assuming the assumptions' of?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Samprimary, I believe that heaven is the condition of being in a specific relationship with God and that God will do everything to be in that relationship with us except force it on us.
Sure, but what matters is if those tools are available after death, where, ostensibly, those non-evident matters of faith and competing false religions can be cleared up right-quick.
I don't see (and haven't heard a good argument) why not. I do think that choices one makes while living would have some impact on whether one chooses a relationship with God but I don't think that those obstacles are impossible to overcome.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Sure, but what matters is if those tools are available after death, where, ostensibly, those non-evident matters of faith and competing false religions can be cleared up right-quick.
Depends on the religion. For many (most?) Christian denominations this life is your one shot. Mormons talk about opportunities for conversion and spiritual growth occurring after death, which is why they have baptisms for the dead and other proxy rituals, but it's supposedly more difficult to progress that way because a physical body is considered to be a particularly useful tool in that process.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Folks who treat it like religion is on trial tend to end up dissatisfied with religion, whereas folks who treat it like they are a student trying to learn difficult concepts tend to end up more satisfied after the questioning.
The big problem with this is that this works regardless of whether the religion is true or not.
A Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, or whatever, are going to all be comforted by the answers their religion provides in pretty much the exact same way.
So long as you ask your questions as a "student", you are going to believe whatever hogwash is served to you. It's actively turning off the skeptical portion of your brain to resolve your cognitive dissonance in a pleasant way.
I actually think the quoted statement is a really good observation, but where you are comforted by it, I am horrified.
[ February 04, 2011, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Sure, but what matters is if those tools are available after death, where, ostensibly, those non-evident matters of faith and competing false religions can be cleared up right-quick.
...but it's supposedly more difficult to progress that way because a physical body is considered to be a particularly useful tool in that process.
I've heard this theory, and while it may be correct, there's no strong scriptural backing or general acceptance in the church that changing one's attitudes is easier with a physical body. I think an apostle postulated that theory, and it mentioned by James E. Talmage in Articles of Faith, which gave it currency in the general church populace.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: Folks who treat it like religion is on trial tend to end up dissatisfied with religion, whereas folks who treat it like they are a student trying to learn difficult concepts tend to end up more satisfied after the questioning.
The big problem with this is that this works regardless of whether the religion is true or not.
A Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, or whatever, are going to all be comforted by the answers their religion provides in pretty much the exact same way.
So long as you ask your questions as a "student", you are going to believe whatever hogwash is served to you. It's actively turning off the skeptical portion of your brain to resolve your cognitive dissonance in a pleasant way.
I actually think the quoted statement is a really good one, but where you are comforted by it, I am horrified.
It does not sound like you are considering though that many of the requirements in a religion require obedience before the positive effects can be observed. For example, prayer is a tricky matter. In order to find out if prayer works, one must engage in prayer. A skeptic might say, "But we must be careful not to fall into the trap of downplaying a lack of answers, and focusing on perceived answers, as well as wanting so much for it to work that our brain starts formulating answers for us."
There's nothing wrong with believing in being cautious so that one is not deceived, but one must still pray as that's the way God has apparently designated that he would like for us to communicate with him with.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:There's nothing wrong with believing in being cautious so that one is not deceived, but one must still pray as that's the way God has apparently designated that he would like for us to communicate with him with.
So far as I can tell (given what theists of multiple religions have told me), the side effects of praying that devotely must result in enough self-induced answers that whatever true divinely inspired answers occur are indeterminable. If "doing it right" doesn't produce distinguishable results, then how is this useful for determining truth? (I'm acknowledging there can be value that isn't truth-related, but that value can be found from many strong belief systems)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Prayer is a pretty unreliable method because it's presented as a method capable of only supporting a proposition. The result is at worst neutral and cannot be considered demonstrative of prayer's ineffectiveness. Pray and get an answer - prayer works! Pray and don't get an answer - you didn't do it right, you didn't ask the right question, God wants you to work this out yourself, you got an answer but didn't recognize it, no answer is God's answer, etc.
And that doesn't even touch the idea of false positives - I prayed for help finding my keys and then I looked down and they were on the floor in front of me! I prayed that I'd get over my illness and I did! I prayed that I'd find a job and I got a call an hour later from a recruiter!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Raymond: So far as you can tell. I have no idea how much praying you've done, or how your theist friends pray. All I know is, is that when I pray, it works for me. There have been then enough times where I really wanted something and thought it was a good idea and was told "No." as well as times where I was praying and an answer outside of anything I had conceived of came, that I now believe in the efficacy of prayer. At least until it stops working, but I don't expect it will.
Even people who are aware of biases can still pray with confidence.
--------
MattP: There are options you didn't account for, like, "Pray and don't get an answer, you aren't worthy to get an answer, God doesn't have an opinion on the matter make your own choice." I certainly hold God accountable to all the praying I've done where I was not given instructions and went on to make my own decisions. I fully expect he can account for all the times he didn't answer my prayers.
As for false positives. To me, if I pray and find my keys on the floor in front of me, well great I found my keys, "If that was you God, thanks." I've had an experience where I suddenly got better after praying to be healed, I'm reasonably certain my rate of recovery was faster than is generally accepted as standard. Can I prove God did it? No. For all I know God utilized my body's natural processes and I did all the work, or he already knew I would get better and did nothing. Or God doesn't figure into it. All of those answers are fine to me, I pray and get results, and so I continue praying. I feel like my entire life is a step by step process in understanding God's mind. I don't expect people who do not feel they've gotten answers to their prayers to sign up with my church. I just suggest they give prayer a shot, and observe for themselves if it does anything for them.
You can pray with a mindset of, "I don't expect this to work." I'm sure God can answer those prayers anyway, but I'm reasonably certain God isn't going to answer prayers for people who have already concluded, "Any answer I get is a false positive or something my brain has conjured up." Why should God bother when you've already formed a conclusion? I wouldn't call you if I knew you had already concluded that you weren't going to answer the phone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MattP, None of that is how I handle prayer. We try to be in relationship with God. Relationships need communication. It isn't like throwing coins into a fountain to make a wish or asking the Magic 8 Ball to tell your fortune. It is staying in touch with the Divine.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote: Even as her 11-year-old daughter lay dying on a mattress on the floor of the family dining room on Easter Sunday, Leilani Neumann never wavered in her belief in the power of prayer.
"We just thought it was a spiritual attack and we prayed for her," Neumann said, according to a police report. "My husband, Dale, was crying and mentioned taking Kara to the doctor, and I said the Lord's going to heal her and we continued to pray."
Prayer didn't save Madeline Kara Neumann, who died of untreated diabetes March 23.
...
According to the police report, made available with the charging documents, Dale Neumann said "throughout the interview that he and his family do not need any traditional medical intervention nor do they 'believe' in it."
The document also states: "Neumann said his family never gets sick and if they would, prayer and God would heal them."
...
The Wormgoors arrived at the home 30 minutes before Kara stopped breathing, Dale Neumann said.
Randall Wormgoor encouraged Dale Neumann to call for medical help but the father "said he remained confident and steadfast in his belief that prayer would heal Madeline," according to an interview Dale Neumann gave to police.
...
Police also said an e-mail Dale Neumann sent at 4:58 p.m. on March 22, the day before Kara's death, showed that the parents were aware their daughter was very ill.
The subject line of the email was: "Help our daughter needs emergency prayer!!!!" The e-mail was send to AmericasLastDays, an online ministry run by David Eells.
...
Dale Neumann told investigators that "given the same set of circumstances with another child, he would not waiver in his faith and confidence in the healing power of prayer," according to the interview statement.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There are options you didn't account for, like,
Indeed. There are countless ways in which the failure of the activity is indistinguishable from a success condition. That was sort of my point.
quote:I pray and get results, and so I continue praying.
This is what I meant about the test of prayer being a "positives only" evaluation. Any event that is apparently related to the subject of the prayer is fair game for attributing to the prayer. The lack of such an event or the experience of a counter event (prayed to find a better job but got fired and was unemployed for several months before picking a crappy part-time gig) is not considered evidence against the efficacy of prayer.
Once you've decided that prayer is likely or possibly effective, your criteria for evaluating its effectiveness all but guarantees that your confidence in prayer will increase regardless of how effective it actually is.
quote:Why should God bother when you've already formed a conclusion?
Because God is supposed to be a lot more clever than I. Surely he can come up with a response that doesn't require that I start out believing that prayer works. I flip a switch and the light goes on whether I believe it will or not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP:
quote:This is what I meant about the test of prayer being a "positives only" evaluation. Any event that is apparently related to the subject of the prayer is fair game for attributing to the prayer
Not exactly. Until prayer exhibits the predicted results I don't believe in its efficacy. Those results are not something as simple as I pray and feel good, or I pray a nice things happen.
quote:Because God is supposed to be a lot more clever than I. Surely he can come up with a response that doesn't require that I start out believing that prayer works. I flip a switch and the light goes on whether I believe it will or not.
How is setting up a process by which people of all levels of righteousness are able to have a chat with god more clever?
I've stated this argument before. If we could reliably summon God, we would be worse off if we did not do as he instructed than if he just did not express himself to us in the first place. A person who is praying has to be in a frame of mind where he will accept instruction, even very difficult ones. If all you are interested in is verifying God's existence, but no more or no less, there's hardly any need for such a person to get an answer to that question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A person who is praying has to be in a frame of mind where he will accept instruction, even very difficult ones.
Why? It's not like God has to be somewhere else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If He chooses not to heal somebody, it's not like He's let us down. He simply knows better.
Or He's let us down. There's really know way to know, which is the point.
quote:I wouldn't give them light when I fully know that they won't act on it and I will thus have to punish them more severely.
Why would God have to punish someone?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If, when you pray, God does what He Knows Is Best anyway, then prayer can have no effect. You cannot know better than God, and God does what He Knows Is Best, even if it is in direct contradiction of your prayer.
So prayer only "works" when whatever was going to happen was going to happen anyway. The rest of the time, the answer is "No."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So prayer only "works" when whatever was going to happen was going to happen anyway.
This is sometimes explicitly acknowledged in prayers with phrasing like "if it be thy will" (God prefers Elizabethan English).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it's worth emphasizing that the definition of "works" that Blackblade was using (which isn't necessarily the same as the one LIGHT is using) is not getting a positive answer to a particular question, but rather building up a relationship with God. Your prayers are successful if you form a positive relationship with Him that improves your life.
I don't think that definition solves any problems though, because you could be accomplishing the same thing praying to Allah. Or just random imaginary friends. I personally am capable of feeling relationships with imaginary entities that I know for a fact I made up, and if a culture telling me those entities were in fact real, I might have a hard time distinguishing them from falsehood.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I prayed that I'd get over my illness and I did! I prayed that I'd find a job and I got a call an hour later from a recruiter!
The same mental principles that feed this, it should be noted, feed the effectiveness of homeopathy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think it's worth emphasizing that the definition of "works" that Blackblade was using (which isn't necessarily the same as the one LIGHT is using) is not getting a positive answer to a particular question, but rather building up a relationship with God.
I'm not sure about that. In LDS circles, a lot of prayer is about getting a definitive response about one thing or another. It's the primary mechanism by which prospective converts are instructed to inquire as the truth of the church.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
As an interesting thought experiment, every time you pray to God for one thing to happen, you can pray to Odin for the opposite to happen. You'll find that every time God answers No, Odin answers Yes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:(God prefers Elizabethan English).
He is the King of Heaven, after all. Addressing God in formalized language is a sign of our recognition of that, and our reverence for him.
It's not precisely necessary-- in Italian, for example, they don't use the formal 'Lei' when addressing God, but the familiar 'Tu.' And prayers are answered all the same.
I submit that it's more about the attitude than about the language.
quote:MattP, None of that is how I handle prayer. We try to be in relationship with God. Relationships need communication. It isn't like throwing coins into a fountain to make a wish or asking the Magic 8 Ball to tell your fortune. It is staying in touch with the Divine.
100% agree.
quote:I think that scripture is inspired by a relationship with the Divine. I also believe that the people who were writing it down (and those who chose what became canon) were people - rooted in a specific time and place and context with their own ideas and brains and wills.
Agreed mostly-- but why do we give weight to Jesus' words about helping the poor, but not to Paul's words about how women shouldn't speak in church? And how do we decide which is more valid or more weighty?
For Mormons, the answer is an appeal to a present authority: the current prophets. Which is not to say that all interpretation is handled through the hierarchy; personal revelation about which doctrines are most important to us personally is still a big part of Mormonism. In addition, if a doctrine is present in two or more of our scriptures, I *think* it's safe to say it's more an established doctrine than if it's just in one.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, why would our Creator "let us down"? His top priority is to save us from eternal death, so that we can live in His perfect universe forever when sin has been removed from it. If He sees that He can save for eternity a mortally ill 12-year-old, who might otherwise suffer greatly in life and in bitter despair be lead to turn against Him if the child were to be healed, then He might judge it better to allow the child to die.
Or if He sees that the mortally ill child will grow up to be a terribly evil person who will harm many people, why should He specially intervene to give the child a miraculous healing?
It is one thing for God to allow a person like Adolph Hitler to grow up, and demonstrate the true malignity of the evil he will embrace, as a lesson to all mankind; and quite another for Him to specially intervene and miraculously preserve the life of Hitler. As I have said before, God does have freedom of choice, since He created it and gave it to His intelligent creatures.
Since God is the Source of all life, and sustains our lives from moment-to-moment (because He Himself IS Existence itself), therefore He knows us from the inside out and experiences all that we experience, think, and feel. His nature is pure and holy, and so there must be a limit to the burden of evil He will bear up under, even for our sakes.
If you do not believe in God to start with, and if you do not believe in the promise of eternal life or the desirability of living in Heaven and the New Earth, then you could not possibly evaluate these things properly. What you call logical and realistic are not; they are the product of ill-informed bias and antagonism against God.
You should not condemn what you do not understand. It is presumption for you to think you are qualified to judge God.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Prayer is not about getting your way or changing God's will. It is about realigning your will with God's.
My point being that if you pray to contradicting deities, you'll be realigning yourself with one of their will's every time.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Ron Lambert: Do you every worry that your beliefs are self-contradictory?
If God's nature is Pure and Holy, then it follows that he cannot have freedom of choice, unless Purity and Holiness are circular, only being defined as "whatever God does."
If there is any objective definition of Purity and Holiness, then God, being the epitome of those virtues, could never choose not to exhibit them.
Also, you have to consider that God's pretty impotent if he can't manage to turn a 12 year old to the straight and narrow. His ONLY recourse is to kill a sick child so that they don't grow up to be a monster?
Humans the world over can manage to raise good, moral children, but the creator of the universe can't figure it out, and has to let them die of Lukemia? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you do not believe in God to start with, and if you do not believe in the promise of eternal life or the desirability of living in Heaven and the New Earth, then you could not possibly evaluate these things properly. What you call logical and realistic are not; they are the product of ill-informed bias and antagonism against God.
You should not condemn what you do not understand. It is presumption for you to think you are qualified to judge God.
Ron, none of this is going to convince Tom, mostly because you have to start from the premise that there is omnipotent loving God. Likewise, it seems a little hypocritical to me to say that you can understand God's motives and what He will do and why He will do it (in the case of if we legalize SSM, then God will destroy us with meteors because He will be so angry), when you say that Tom can't possibly guess God's motives.
Ultimately, prayer is going to fail any kind of rational experiment. You're conducting an experiment in which you expect certain results, and you measure those results in yourself, with no quantifiable measures or any controls. There's no way to empirically prove that prayer causes anything. Personally, I think I've prayed and felt an incredible change of emotions. It's made me feel better when nothing else could, etc. But I can't prove that it's God on the other end, and not just me entering into a more self-reflective state. All I can say is that it feels different than talking to an imaginary friend and so on, but I don't have any objective measure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, the words of Jesus carry more weight because Jesus (for us) is God. Paul was not.
[ February 05, 2011, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Don't you think it's important who or what we realign our will with?
I think it's important that people actually know with whom or what they've chosen to "realign" their wills, as opposed to with whom or what they'd like to think they're aligning.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you do not believe in God to start with, and if you do not believe in the promise of eternal life or the desirability of living in Heaven and the New Earth, then you could not possibly evaluate these things properly.
This again? The starting assumption of God?
If one does not have the ability to properly evaluate these things, then how does one come to the conclusion that God exists? Where is the entry point?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Scott, the words of Jesus carry more weight because Jesus (for us) is God. Paul was not.
But Jesus didn't write the Bible, kmboots.
quote:I also believe that the people who were writing it down (and those who chose what became canon) were people - rooted in a specific time and place and context with their own ideas and brains and wills.
Consider:
1) If you believe that Paul was a prophet and that the Bible teaches the uncorrupted Gospel, then shouldn't his words weigh as much as Christ's? They spring from the same source, after all-- God.
2) If you believe the record of Paul's words can be corrupted by men with their own ideas, brains, and will, how is the record of Christ's words any different? In this case, both the words of Christ and the words of Paul are equally suspect.
3) If neither of the two apply to you, how do you explain the ability of Christ's words to remain uncorrupted throughout the years, and why wouldn't that ability apply also to Paul?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, why do you object to my posing an argument by starting with the assumption that God is real? Most people here at least claim to be familiar with the scientific method--which starts with making an assumption, formulating a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and then testing it and then retesting it for confirmation. If it works, then you have validated your assumption. Anyone who confuses this with "circular reasoning" has no business even claiming to know anything about logic or the scientific method.
Anna2112, you made the same error some others have made in wrongly summarizing my position, where you said: "...in the case of if we legalize SSM, then God will destroy us with meteors because He will be so angry...." Twice I have sought to contradict that idea. I did not ever say that if we legalize same-sex marriage God would punish us in anger, or any such thing. I said that the Creator now exercises unusual, special, and supernatural intervention to protect our world from the destruction that already would have destroyed us all. But if we directly defy His authority as Creator to ordain and define what marriage is, then He cannot in justice continue to show us special favor. This is not anger. This is done with great regret, and He only does it because it would be hypocritical of Him to continue to show us special favor when we openly and officially repudiate Him by denying His authority. Is there some reason why the distinction I am making here is not clear?
Suppose you are a juvenile deliquent who has been engaging in a shoplifting career, plus occasional burglarizing of houses. Your loving parents may pay your bail and hire a lawyer to defend you, and help avoid or minimize any jail time you have to face. This can go on and on for years.
But suppose you get a gun and kill your parents, so you can feel that you are finally free of them. Can they still post bail for you, and hire a lawyer to defend you? No--you have gone over the top, passed a limit beyond which there is no retrieval. This is not because your parents ever deliberately sought to punish you. It is because you sought to punish them with an ultimate act of defiance and rejection.
Without going into the theological and philosophical reasoning, any desire to reject and defy God is ultimately revealed as the will to kill God. (But since God is the Source of all life, the desire to kill God winds up being suicide.) The point is that the example I gave is not far-fetched at all.
If we by an official act choose to contradict the Creator's definition of what marriage is, then we are no longer just routinely sinning (shoplifting, burglarizing, etc.), we are now trying to kill God. He still loves us, even so. He chose willingly to die for us. But He cannot continue to show us special favor by sending His angels to ward off megaton meteroid blasts, if we go over the top, and pass beyond the limit by directly, officially trying to overrule His authority. Divine anger nor punishment do not enter the picture at all.
[ February 05, 2011, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: swbarnes2: What if God thought that it would be better for the girl to die?
Well, obviously. You don't give a deadly chronic disease which causes a child to die over the course of 4 drawn out days to someone you want to have a healthy life.
We'll see if any other theist on the board sees fit to contradict your claim. So far, all the theists posting seems alright with letting it pass.
quote:WIf He chooses not to heal somebody, it's not like He's let us down. He simply knows better.
It's not just that God choose not to heal Kara. It's that he made her sick, and then chose not to heal her. It's dishonest to leave that first part out, but only Ron has had the honesty to deal with it.
quote:If you were trying to "prove" that prayer doesn't work, you're going about it the wrong way.
Wonderful! Then why don't you explain the right way to do prove that prayer doesn't work. I'm eager to hear it.
quote:This life isn't just a joy ride--it's a learning experience.
Wonderful! Explain to us what Kara Neumann learned in the last four days of her life. Explain to us all the wonderful things she learned in her life in 2010.
When an omnipotent God watches a mosquito he made infect an infant with malaria (which God also made), and that infant dies, what kind of learning experience are you claiming that child had?
I predict no theist will have the honesty to give straightforward answers to any of these questions.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I would disagree both with what Scott R said, and with what kmboots said.
The Bible is still ESSENTIALLY the Word of God, because He inspired the people who wrote it, even though they expressed what was revealed to them in human language and in human concepts.
Anyone who has studied the inconsistencies of eyewitnesses to any event, knows the natural variation that can occur. But by comparing witness with witness, commonalities can be determined, and a fairly reliable overview can be established, that can with profit be used in court. So with the Bible. With such a multitude of witnesses, we can compare one to another, and allow the plainer statements to explain or amplify the more ambiguous statements, enough so that we can be quite certain what is the true teaching of God's Word regarding any doctrine.
Only those who are not really seeking for truth will seize upon texts that seem to support their pre-conceived views, taking them completely out of context and not considering those other texts that would shed a much different light on things. The Bible is plain enough when studied in a conscientious, scholarly sound manner, that such people are without excuse.
kmboots, I do not agree with anyone who would suggest that there are degrees of inspiration in the Bible. "ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD...." (2 Timothy 3:16; NASB)
The only writing we have in the Bible that is represented as having been written by God Himself is the Ten Commandments (and perhaps the writing on the wall at Belshazzar's feast--though that might have been done by an angel). Everything else--even when the prophets are quoting God--is given according to the recollection of the prophet. The same is also true of the sermons of Jesus, quoted in the gospels, and in some editions of the Bible printed in red. Thoughtful consideration will inevitably lead to the conclusion that the sermons and teachings of Jesus as quoted, are really summaries, not actual word-for-word transcripts.
An exception might be the apocalyptic prophecies, such as the visions of Daniel and Revelation, where the prophet does not necessarily undersand what He is being shown, and is writing down as good a description as he can of what he has seen and heard in the visions. It does appear that in most of Revelation, John was actually taking dictation from the Lord. (See for example Rev. 2:1, first part.)
As for the Psalms, and wisdom literature (such as Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, etc.), those are still inspired by God no less than any of the prophets or the apostles. Consider Psalms 22. This Psalm reveals to us the very thoughts that Jesus Christ would think while He was dying on the Cross--a thousand years before the event. The things mentioned in Psalms 22 never happened to King David. Note especially verses 17, 18: "...they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." Compare the gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.
The Bible itself nowhere makes any distinction in degrees of inspiration contained in the Bible. The narratives of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, the historical chronicles--all are presented as being part of the "Word of God," on an equal footing with the prophets and Psalms.
Again, as stated by the Apostle Paul: "ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16; NASB)
[ February 05, 2011, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
swbarnes2, look at it this way. Originally God did seek to supervise every detail of our lives, guarding us so that no bad thing could ever happen to us--EXCEPT for what we might freely choose.
After the sin of man caused a separation between our species and our Creator, we in effect told God to "Back off," and not "breathe down our neck," so to speak. So in respect for our freewill, God has backed off, and does not "breathe down our neck."
The result is this: "...time and chance happen to them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:11; NRSV) This is who reign over us now. When we hold God off at arm's length, Time and Chance rules over us all. At times, under certain circumstances, God can still intervene. But it requres a SPECIAL intervention for Him to do this.
If you do not like the way this present life is run, then turn over your life to God, and trust Him to straighten out the universe, so that ultimately--sooner or later--life will again become free of pain and death or sorrow, the way God originally meant for it to be. There is no other way this can be done. Our only two choices are the rule of Time and Chance, or faith in God to make all things right.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, why do you object to my posing an argument by starting with the assumption that God is real? Most people here at least claim to be familiar with the scientific method--which starts with making an assumption, formulating a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and then testing it and then retesting it for confirmation. If it works, then you have validated your assumption. Anyone who confuses this with "circular reasoning" has no business even claiming to know anything about logic or the scientific method.
I have not claimed this is circular reasoning. (Granted, I have accused you of this in another thread, but that was for a different reason.) I don't object to you starting with that assumption to make your point. What I'm saying is you have not given a reason to accept that the existence of God should be taken as an axiom. What difference does your point make if the axiom is not true? The statement (if A then B), while true, gives no one any reason to believe that (A) is true to begin with. You can analyze the truthfulness of (if A then B) up and down all day, you can make that assumption, formulate a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and test it and retest it for confirmation, but if (A) is false, none of it matters. If the existence of God is truly paramount to the eternal welfare of our souls, then we need a simple answer as to why we should believe it to be true.*
"If the light switch is up, then my bedroom light is on." "The light switch is not up."
Both statements are (currently) true. But the first one is just academic, and matters little in a practical sense, if the predicate evaluates to false.
I will even concede that your original (if A then B) statement in the other thread is true. But that doesn't speak at all to the truth value of (A).
*ETA: I will admit that this is an (if A then B) statement that is not proven to be true.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, in every statement that I have ever made that began with the assumption that God is real and the Bible is true, I have always given examples that show that what derrives from this assumption WORKS. This is the only reason I ever quote the Bible, so people can see for themselves how what the Bible says makes sense and does work, and that I haven't just been making things up about it.
By the way, I prefer not to indulge in lengthy use of syllogisms and axiomatic language. As one who specialized in use of Boolean Algebra in computer programming (see some of my published tutorial articles on computer programming), I have found that for most people, this kind of reasoning is not readily accessible for them. It may prove that I am erudite; but it will not persuade most people of the points I am trying to make. So that is why I do not reply in the same kind of language you employed. As much as possible, I try to express this as simply and plainly in common means of expression as I can, without use of jargon or excessive math.
[ February 05, 2011, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Ron, let me try to be more clear. I'm not debating the logic that leads you from A to B. I even just conceded that about your original A->B statement in the other thread. I have no problem with your logical derivations (for the most part). But for non-believers, the derivations don't matter. Your axiom matters. Because for us it is not an axiom, and therefore we have no use for the derivation. When you say, "If A...", if we don't believe A, then what follows doesn't make any difference.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, in every statement that I have ever made that began with the assumption that God is real and the Bible is true, I have always given examples that show that what derrives from this assumption WORKS.
Sorry to nitpick, but just a couple of posts ago, which prompted me to respond, you said:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you do not believe in God to start with, and if you do not believe in the promise of eternal life or the desirability of living in Heaven and the New Earth, then you could not possibly evaluate these things properly.
You have not derived this conclusion. I seem to recall that faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the Word of God - which seems to me to be the opposite of what you're saying here.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, of course it has not escaped my notice that non-believers do not accept the assumptions I am beginning with. My whole point is to persuade them to accept those same assumptions, by showing that they work. When you do start with those assumptions, then all the supposedly "unanswerable" questions of non-believers can be answered, quite adequately.
That statement you cited, that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" is a perfect example of what I mean.
Faith does not come from nowhere. It has reasonable, logical, and authoritative origins. Which are established as being just those things when you test them. Thus God challenges us all: "Come now, and LET US REASON TOGETHER, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18.)
(As an aside, a friend of mine at church bought a new white car, and also purchased a custom license plate that read: ISA 118. Her daughter told her, "You know Mom, now you're going to have to keep that car clean!")
[ February 05, 2011, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I predict no theist will have the honesty to give straightforward answers to any of these questions.
How are you defining straightforward? I like to know the measuring stick by which my destined failure is being judged.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is another promise God makes, challenging us to test Him:
"'Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. TEST ME IN THIS,' says the LORD Almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.'" (Malachi 3:10; NIV)
We see by this that in God's view, having faith does not preclude testing what He has promised.
As my church understands it, the New Testament form of tithing is to support those who proclaim the gospel. "Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14; NKJV; see also v. 13: The temple and things of the altar were provided by the tithe in ancient Israel.) I think that any denomination, and any believer, who do not practice tithing, are missing a blessing that would strengthen their faith.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That statement you cited, that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" is a perfect example of what I mean.
Faith does not come from nowhere...
No! That's not what you mean! I just said it's the opposite of what you're saying. You have been saying this whole time that it's an assumption that you're starting with. I have been trying to get you to explain how you come by that assumption. I have been asking, "Where is the entry point?"
You said that unless one believes already, then one cannot properly evaluate these things.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, I prefer not to indulge in lengthy use of syllogisms and axiomatic language. As one who specialized in use of Boolean Algebra in computer programming (see some of my published tutorial articles on computer programming), I have found that for most people, this kind of reasoning is not readily accessible for them. It may prove that I am erudite; but it will not persuade most people of the points I am trying to make. So that is why I do not reply in the same kind of language you employed. As much as possible, I try to express this as simply and plainly in common means of expression as I can, without use of jargon or excessive math.
At the risk of sounding insulting, this actually makes this discussion more frustrating. Not because you won't talk using this terminology, but because I can now be sure you know exactly what I mean when I say (if A then B)=true speaks not at all to the truth value of (A).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, pardon the expression, but where do you get off saying to me "No! That's not what you mean!" So you think you know better than I do what I mean? This is the kind of silly statement I usually prefer not to respond to.
Sean, Sean, please--Think! Where do you begin with in making any assumption in using the scientific method? You can make an assuption arbitrarily if you want to--so that you can then formulate a testable, falsifiable theory, and then test and retest it.
Oh yes, here is another "test" statement in the Bible: "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21; NKJV) If you read the preceding verses, it is talking about light that we receive from the Holy Spirit, especially in the gift of prophecy. So even the prophesying of prophets is to be tested. God directs us to do this!
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, pardon the expression, but where do you get off saying to me "No! That's not what you mean!" So you think you know better than I do what I mean? This is the kind of silly statement I usually prefer not to respond to.
Pardon me for having the presumption to think I know what you mean merely by reading what you wrote.
ETA: And again, regarding the scientific method you are employing. Granted I haven't read you're entire posting history, but you haven't made a testable hypothesis that ends with, "therefore God exists"; it's always been a starting assumption.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Perhaps you are not as good a reader as you think you are, Sean. And the level of your presumption is unpardonable, in my estimation.
Frankly I am tired of trying to reason with you. You do not seem to do it very well, and I judge that you are wasting my time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I judge that you are wasting my time.
Dude. You're on the internet. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron also evaluates himself as a brave person by standing up to atheist agnostics, 'unafraid' to respond to their challenges, so.
Anyway, there seems to be a straightforward way to break this logjam: what is the scientific method, Ron and Sean?
Obviously I disagree with you, Ron, but if you really want to defend your position as someone using logic and the scientific method here, I believe that stance requires that you actually show you are using the scientific method instead of simply claiming you're doing so, which is what you're doing, and which is what Sean is challenging you on, repeatedly.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Most people here at least claim to be familiar with the scientific method--which starts with making an assumption, formulating a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and then testing it and then retesting it for confirmation. If it works, then you have validated your assumption.
That's not how it works. Science, and anything else, really, starts with presuppositions, which are beliefs that are required to reach a certain conclusion, but cannot possibly be proved. If you reach a conclusion using the scientific method, you may have validate your assumptions and hypothesis within the framework of your presuppositions, but you have done nothing in terms of verifying your presuppositions.
One of your presuppositions is that God exists. One of science's big presuppositions is that the world is orderly and comprehensible. Neither of these can be proven, even if you run a thousand experiments within the framework of these presuppositions. Your claim that your experiments and analysis proves that God exists does not follow from what you've presented to us.
ETA:
quote:When you do start with those assumptions, then all the supposedly "unanswerable" questions of non-believers can be answered, quite adequately.
Quite adequately to someone who already believes in the same presuppositions. For me, and others, who do not accept those presuppositions, your answers are nowhere near adequate.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: One of science's big presuppositions is that the world is orderly and comprehensible.
comprehensible for humans. and its a presupposition perhaps but not a guarantee (also the world isnt orderly beyond the fact that there are natural laws.) approaching science thinking it can make the world explicable in human terms is irrational.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron, you (a) haven't made a single case for God using the scientific method, and (b) stated vehemently that only with belief in god can someone come to valid conclusions.
So unless you want to fit (a) into your equation plausibly, stop challenging Sean (who's really going to great lengths to try to discuss with you, even when that causes you to judge him with having unforgivable assumptions and not being worth your time) by throwing 'scientific' assumptions into your posts. Thaaaaaaanks.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Perhaps you are not as good a reader as you think you are, Sean.
First, you said, "If you do not believe in God to start with, and if you do not believe in the promise of eternal life or the desirability of living in Heaven and the New Earth, then you could not possibly evaluate these things properly."
Then, you said, "That statement you cited, that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" is a perfect example of what I mean."
Perhaps my reading comprehension is lacking, but these seem like opposite statements to me. How can faith come from the Word of God, if we are unable to properly evaluate the Word of God without faith? Or did you not mean the general "you" in that first statement, and were referring only to TomD? Or by "these things" were you talking about prayer only, and not the Bible? I don't know how the two statements can be reconciled otherwise.
I'll tell you something personal about myself, Ron. I am desperate for there to be an afterlife. Not necessarily the Christian afterlife. But a paradisical afterlife where I can be reunited with those who have passed. I am DESPERATE for it to be true. But I will not believe it if it doesn't make rational sense to me to hold such a belief, just for the purpose of my own comfort. I will not believe it without a reason to believe it.
A few years ago I started a thread with a question for atheists. In that thread I stated I was a theist. In actuality, I was coming to grips with admitting to myself that, after 20 years of being a devout self-professed born-again Christian, that I did not believe. I have never found a reason to. To become a believer, one must find a reason to believe. To be a non-believer, one does not need a reason not to believe; one must merely fail to find a reason to believe. I have thus far failed to find a reason.
If you judge that I'm wasting your time, well, so be it. Ultimately, Ron, all I'm trying to get you to do is answer the question, "Why should we begin with that assumption? Where's the entry point?" with an answer that makes logical sense to me. You haven't provided it yet, and I don't really want to jump on this bandwagon, but it is difficult for me to believe that you are not just dodging what you don't have an answer for.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Heaven is a beach house in the caribbean inhabited by all your best friends, and free burrito supremes for eternity, and you never get fat.
Make it fajitas and I'm officially converted.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: MightyCow, I don't get it... What exactly is your point? You pretty much stated the obvious. Don't you think it's important who or what we realign our will with?
OK, why is it important who or what you realign your will with? To me, it just sounds like a mental exercise in attempting to guess what's going to happen, which you call "realigning your will with God."
I'm not sure what the value of that practice is though, except perhaps to make one feel good about bad things, because they can be attributed to the unknowable nature of a divine.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, the Bible claims that "...God has dealt to each one a measure of faith." (Romans 12:3; NKJV)
In other words, God has given to everyone the ability to have faith. It is like every mind has been given a prepared garden, and God has planted the first seed.
How can this be verified? Try it and see. Water it, nurture it, feed it more of the testimony of Scripture, and see if it can grow. If there is a God who has planted this seed in the basic essence of you, then you can talk to God, and ask Him to increase your faith. And He will show you the things that will validate and strengthen belief. Enable you to see the logical reasons for faith, the evidences that God has provided all around you. All this requires is that you make a choice to be fair-minded and willing for God to reveal Himself to you.
You can kill that seed even as it sprouts if you choose to be demanding, unfair, and bitterly critical. Do not expect God to conform to your expectations, saying He must do this or that or you won't believe in Him, or even worse, that you won't believe He is really Good, and worthy of being worshipped. Allow for a moment the possibility that He is in fact vastly wiser and more knowledgeable than you. Let Him have the opportunity to reveal to you Who He really is.
Please do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying you must just close your eyes and blindly believe. I am not saying that. That is not what faith is. Faith can operate without conclusive evidence--such as seeing Him with your eyes when Jesus is visibly returning to this world in a sky filled with millions of angels. But faith does and is expected to require reasonable, persuasive, and logical foundations. Your preconceived opinions are not among those foundations.
Most of those who reject God have done no more than build a straw man that has nothing to do with Who or What God really is. They prove nothing with their arguments. The God they are rejecting does not and never did exist, because that is not the real God.
For example, if you cannot believe in a God who would torture souls for eternity in some undying death writhing in constant flame, check what Scripture really teaches about the state of the dead and the ultimate end of the wicked. God has been greatly misrepresented by many denominations and religions, and this is probably what has caused more people to be unable to believe than anything else.
Remember that because our race is born with a serious problem of having a void of separation between our own spiritual being and God, none of us are born with a right knowledge of God. We have to develop this. Another way of saying it is that none of us are born being right in our thinking, so if we ever wish to be right-thinking, we have to BECOME right-thinking.
Some of us are born with an attitude that is more conducive to allowing us to be willing to have faith increase--the Bible implies that John the Baptist responded to the drawing of the Holy Spirit even before he was born. Some of us almost from birth seem to be reaching toward God with yearning. But even those who for some reason are less aware of this in themselves, still have it to some extent. That is the promise of Romans 12:3. Everyone is able to develop faith, if they will look at the evidences God will provide them with, keeping their minds open, and maintaining a humble and patient and respectful attitude.
It is like God says to us, "Yes, I know you have trouble believing. Let me help you. Come now, let us reason together. (Isaiah 1:18) Test me, (Malachi 3:10). Jesus heard with favor the earnest prayer of the desperate man who said: "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24; NKJV)
Sometimes what prevents us from receiving light from the Lord that will increase our faith, is that we are reluctant to risk having to give up some sinful practice that we enjoy. While cherishing sin does separate us from God, God does not require that we overcome every sin in our lives before He will listen to us and answer our prayers. He is willing to take us where we are, and patiently lead us one step at a time. And remember this about God: He is not a celestial killjoy out to spoil our fun. Anytime He purposes to take anything away from us--for our sakes--that we might presently enjoy, He always gives us something in its place that is much better--right now in this life, as well as in the life to come. "So Jesus answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time--houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions--and in the age to come, eternal life.'" (Mark 10:29, 30; NKJV)
Just be willing to believe that God is Good, despite your doubts, and He will show you that He is. But do not expect that God will remove every possibility of doubt. He purposely allows some hooks to remain for those who are determined to hang their doubts upon them. This is because everyone must freely choose to trust in God and commit themselves whole-heartedly to Him, and removing all possibility of doubt would be forcing them to believe. This would be no solution at all, for the Bible tells us: "Even the demons believe--and tremble!" (James 2:19; NKJV) It is not enough to know the truth, even with absolute certainty. What matters is choosing to commit yourself utterly to faith in the Goodness of God, surrendering yourself to that Goodness.
[ February 05, 2011, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:For example, if you cannot believe in a God who would torture souls for eternity in some undying death writhing in constant flame, check what Scripture really teaches about the state of the dead and the ultimate end of the wicked.
What does it say about these things, as you see it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Can't you let yourself trust God? Just a little? Enough to take this a little seriously? A little prayer, a little scripture reading, a little attempt to follow Christ? A little trust is all it takes to start--and that's the same for all relationships.
Well, no, that's not true at all. Trust is not all it takes for all relationships-it's a necessary component of all good relationships, but a relationship with anyone cannot be built with just trust. Not quite the same thing.
And speaking strictly in terms of persuasiveness, LIGHT, you're approaching this in a pretty unpersuasive way if you're really attempting to preach to the unbelievers. Telling someone who doesn't believe in God, who isn't even sure that God exists, "Can't you just trust God," is...well, it's just going to fall completely flat, and there's a good chance it's going to be at least a little insulting, because there's the possible implicit suggestion that you think they're lying: that they don't actually have doubts that God exists, or that they don't know their own minds or something.
Starting off with the belief, "God is unknowable," throws a wrench in the notions of faith, trust, and confidence in God. Not in other human beings or in those ideals in general.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Can't you let yourself trust God? Just a little? Enough to take this a little seriously? A little prayer, a little scripture reading, a little attempt to follow Christ? A little trust is all it takes to start--and that's the same for all relationships.
You assume a lot. I know very few atheists who didn't go through a period of time, in some cases years, where they fought the good fight in trying to make religion, generally Christianity, work on its own terms.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: I predict no theist will have the honesty to give straightforward answers to any of these questions.
How are you defining straightforward? I like to know the measuring stick by which my destined failure is being judged.
Come on. I can do it easily. Kara learned absolutely nothing in the last 4 days of her life. And she learned nothing in 2010, because she was dead. So her life was not so much of a learning experience.
Infants who die of malaria before they are old enough to think get nothing out of their so-called "learning experience" of life.
But if you insist, I can try some yes or no questions for you.
If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
It would be nice to get lots of answers to these questions, just so that were all know where we disagree. For instance, we already know Ron's answer about the God's correctness in killing or sickening children, but I bet not all the theists will agree with him.
But there's no way to know unless the theists go on record with some specific claims. I think that this is a good place to start.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Can't you let yourself trust God? Just a little? Enough to take this a little seriously? A little prayer, a little scripture reading, a little attempt to follow Christ? A little trust is all it takes to start--and that's the same for all relationships.
You assume a lot. I know very few atheists who didn't go through a period of time, in some cases years, where they fought the good fight in trying to make religion, generally Christianity, work on its own terms.
I have watched people torture themselves over this for years and years. Sometimes, they are appealing to God frequently as they agonize over their sexuality and wanting as sincerely as it is humanly possible to be to be faithful and straight and filled with the faith/love of God.
Then they have either killed themselves or become athiest/agnostic and immediately started being happier and accepting of their sexuality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Actually, I was thinking that the way you phrased the original question demonstrated an insurmountable bias against any answer that any theist might give. You expressed doubts about theists' honesty and straightforwardness.
It's difficult to talk with someone who thinks you're going to be dishonest. That sort of bias really kind of makes the conversation moot.
But let's see how it goes, okay?
quote:If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
I would have taken her to the hospital, praying for her the whole time. I would have prayed for the doctors; prayed for her health; and prayed for her parents. I would have prayed to know God's will, and to put my heart in line with what it is He wants. I would have followed the doctor's instructions for care with the same amount of dedication that I try to follow God's commandments.
I believe that God would reveal his will so that my prayers would be turned toward the right purpose-- either in gratitude, or for comfort.
I believe God listens to our prayers, and responds. I believe that prayer allows us to draw closer to him to hear and understand his response. I believe that occasionally God intervenes in miraculous ways, but that trying to decipher his methodology for doing so is seldom a worthwhile endeavor. There are too many variables to come up with a consistent, rational answer; ultimately, I have faith that he knows more than I do.
quote:Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent. I believe, however, that he can turn all tragedy, no matter how deep, into strength when we turn to him and try to understand what he's doing to us.
I'm reminded of an instance when Jesus was asked to heal a man who had been born blind. His disciples wondered if the man was being punished, or if the man's parents had committed some sin that caused his blindness. Christ's answer was that the man was blind in order to show God's greatness; and then he healed him. Sometimes, tragedy strikes to teach the individual a lesson; sometimes tragedy strikes to teach individuals around the afflicted a lesson.
Sometimes, tragedy is an effect of a complicated universe where people have agency and God can't always intervene.
quote:Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
I don't know the Neumanns; I can't answer this question directly. They seem at best foolish; at worst murderous. God gave us minds for a reason; we have medicine and doctors and technology for a reason. They are as much a blessing as rain and sunlight.
quote:Infants who die of malaria before they are old enough to think get nothing out of their so-called "learning experience" of life.
In Mormonism, mortality is not the first time we're aware. We believe in a life before this one in which we were individuals, aware, and intelligent, but in which we were bodiless. Mormonism holds that we agreed to come to this life, even knowing the grief and pain that would be waiting here for us, just for a chance to get a body. While an infant isn't cognizant as we'd recognize it of its situation, if the child dies, the spirit that rises from it is completely aware of what it has experienced; it retains all its character, knowledge and understanding from its pre-earth life.
So, for Mormons at least, it's not entirely correct to say that the infant hasn't learned anything.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
That was pretty well written, it almost made me forget you were a theist, and inherently discredited!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Almost I persuade you to be unbiased, huh?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
LIGHT, the problem with "trusting God," as you put it, is that the technique of trust you demand is exactly the same method by which one can brainwash oneself. In other words: I have no doubt that someone who chooses to "trust" in Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Odin, might eventually conclude that he has indeed chosen the one true faith, the church of the god or gods that will make him content and happy. I don't doubt this because I need merely to observe the world as it is to know that it is true.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent.
Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
LIGHT: When I find out that a bunch of innocent people in Egypt have been murdered by police, I would rather be disappointed and rebel against that state of affairs, than to just accept that some unknowable being wants that for some reason or another and decide that it must be a good thing.
And for reference, I was a Christian for more than 20 years before I realized that it's illogical and that I can't find a shred of reason to believe in God.
Let me ask you a question: Can you let yourself trust Odin? Just a little? Are you willing to honestly and with an open mind pray to Odin, and ask Him to deliver you from the lie of Christianity?
I doubt it.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
Mormons in general believe that God is not omnipotent, in that there are physical laws He cannot break (conservation of matter and energy, I think, is specifically called out as a feature of reality that God did not invent, and cannot violate), and there are moral contradictions He cannot twist out of (He cannot institute a system founded on perfect justice, and then operate unjustly within it, without destroying the system).
Questions like "can God make a rock so large He cannot lift it" are laughable to Mormons because in Mormon philosophy, God is not required to be able to do contradictory things in order to be "omnipotent enough" to count as God.
Some Mormons extend this idea to speculate that there are likely more physical laws that God adheres to, which haven't been specifically listed out for us. He might do so because He must, or because it's a condition of the system He has set up, or because He intends to bring about an outcome that benefits from adherence to those laws.
Whatever the reason, it seems to be borne out in observation. Regardless of the personal faith-based reasons that we, as individuals, might have to believe in God, we observe the same ordered, predictable universe that atheists do, and this seems to indicate that, for the most part, the universe abides by consistent laws, and that God's interactions with it manage to maintain that consistency.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Regarding this question in particular:
quote:Does that mean you believe in more than one god?
I'm not sure how you get there from the rest of the discussion. Why would rejecting the classical definition of an omnipotent God require us to believe in more of them?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent.
Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
I don't know that there are "forces" that can do things God cannot do. But here are some limitations that God has:
God cannot circumvent the effects of sin without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
God cannot force someone to choose to obey his commandments.
God cannot create a world in which we gain the experience he wants us to have without also exposing us to sin, pain, and misery.
God cannot commit sin and remain God.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm not sure how you get there from the rest of the discussion. Why would rejecting the classical definition of an omnipotent God require us to believe in more of them?
Well, if God is not omnipotent, then that leaves space for another being with even greater dominion. For instance, if God cannot alter laws of physics, then perhaps there is a greater god that can.
If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason for Armoth's belief in God is that he finds it the most reasonable explanation for the existence of our universe. A god that exists within that universe - subject to its laws rather than being responsible for them - is less compelling in that regard.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sean, why do you object to my posing an argument by starting with the assumption that God is real? Most people here at least claim to be familiar with the scientific method--which starts with making an assumption, formulating a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and then testing it and then retesting it for confirmation. If it works, then you have validated your assumption. Anyone who confuses this with "circular reasoning" has no business even claiming to know anything about logic or the scientific method.
Where's your control test? To be conclusive, you must also test at least one other hypothesis against the initial one to see if it holds up as well or better. Maybe have one person pray to God for an outcome, another pray just as fervently to Odin for the opposite, and one go about his or her business in the absence of a personal god and see what happens.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let me explain quickly what (IMO) the problems are with Ron's "scientific method" as applied to the hypothesis that God exists.
1) The scientific method is intended to test hypotheses and discard the ones that don't work. While this might share a superficial similarity to "let's assume there's a God, and then evaluate observable phenomena from that perspective," there's a difference: there is no scenario in which someone performing the latter "experiment" will actually reject the existence of God based on observed reality. This isn't just a claim of mine, either; it is one of the founding principles of Christian apologetics and Christian "science": that you start with the assumption that God exists (and, slightly more rarely, that the Bible can be considered entirely true), and then look for the most plausible arguments that reconcile observable reality with those assumptions.
It is this sort of logic that gives us theories like "animals were put into suspended animation on the ark" or "the speed of light was different back then." It's worth noting that, yes, if physical laws changed to match the scenarios described in the Bible, those scenarios would not violate physical law -- but since the only reason to believe that they changed is that otherwise the scenarios described in the Bible are highly unlikely, this becomes a classic example of circular reasoning.
Again, though, this doesn't mean that it's not TRUE. It's entirely possible that there is a God, and that physical laws have changed, etc. The question then becomes: is this the most likely possibility? Occam's Razor, IMO, then comes down firmly against it; "God" is a proposition of such enormous complexity that it requires considerably more positive evidence than has been presented.
2) There is no testable, predictive value in the "God" theory, making actual verification of a hypothesis rather difficult. One cannot get from "God exists as described in the Bible" to "but this test, if positive, will disprove His existence, or make it X% less likely." Heck, it's arguable that several people have presented exactly such tests over time -- tests of the effectiveness of prayer, tests of historical accuracy, tests of scientific accuracy, tests of logic -- and an entire field of study and argument has arisen to do little more than explain to the satisfaction of believers why such tests will always be insufficient. More importantly, though, applying the scientific method to God does not produce any usefully predictive information; we cannot say, once we assume that God exists, that anything else about someone's observable reality will change in any observable way. There is nothing that we can do, even assuming that God is real, that will perceptibly and predictably change the world based on the effect God has on the rest of physical reality.
And, again, the field of apologetics will attempt to tell you why this is, to rationalize this lack of observable impact. But compare this to real science. Imagine for a moment that we have "assumed" that a given compound contains oxygen. We have burned it, exposed it in a spectrometer, mixed it with phosphorous and nitrates and the like, etc. -- and at no point has the compound betrayed any suggestion that oxygen is part of the mixture. A scientist, faced with this negative evidence, would be asked by his peers to justify the lack of predictable indicators -- and if he could not do so, perhaps by citing a predictable effect of some other components of the compound (an effect that would be repeatable and could be independently verified), his peers would dismiss his claim as baseless.
3) Another issue here is that the evidence in favor of the "God exists" hypothesis (or the "The Bible is true" one) does not tend to itself be measurable, concrete evidence. It relies heavily on the social "sciences," with things like "this historical event appears to have been accurately depicted, based on similar historical accounts from a few hundred years later," or "this makes me feel good," or "this person healed more rapidly than we might have expected." This isn't to say that this evidence isn't valuable, but rather that it becomes very hard to actually measure and compare it; if I have six miraculous healings provided as proof of religion A's claim, and three completely accurate (if somewhat cryptic) prophecies on behalf of religion B, and thirty perfectly described historical events on behalf of religion C, which one is doing "better?" Which one has more of a claim? (And, of course, the situation in the real world is nowhere near as clear-cut as that.) Is a religion more likely to be the One True Faith if its historical accounts are accurate? Or is a religion with heavily fictionalized history but a few very accurate prophecies in its scripture more credible? What if a lot of people insist that they've seen angels, or laid hands on their children to heal them, or have learned how to levitate?
I understand that few believers will look at it this way, since of course they will tend to view their religion as the most accurate and miraculous (on all counts) out there.
-------
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'm not sure how you get there from the rest of the discussion. Why would rejecting the classical definition of an omnipotent God require us to believe in more of them?
Well, if God is not omnipotent, then that leaves space for another being with even greater dominion. For instance, if God cannot alter laws of physics, then perhaps there is a greater god that can.
If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason for Armoth's belief in God is that he finds it the most reasonable explanation for the existence of our universe. A god that exists within that universe - subject to its laws rather than being responsible for them - is less compelling in that regard.
More or less.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card:
quote:Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
Mormons in general believe that God is not omnipotent, in that there are physical laws He cannot break (conservation of matter and energy, I think, is specifically called out as a feature of reality that God did not invent, and cannot violate), and there are moral contradictions He cannot twist out of (He cannot institute a system founded on perfect justice, and then operate unjustly within it, without destroying the system).
Questions like "can God make a rock so large He cannot lift it" are laughable to Mormons because in Mormon philosophy, God is not required to be able to do contradictory things in order to be "omnipotent enough" to count as God.
Some Mormons extend this idea to speculate that there are likely more physical laws that God adheres to, which haven't been specifically listed out for us. He might do so because He must, or because it's a condition of the system He has set up, or because He intends to bring about an outcome that benefits from adherence to those laws.
Whatever the reason, it seems to be borne out in observation. Regardless of the personal faith-based reasons that we, as individuals, might have to believe in God, we observe the same ordered, predictable universe that atheists do, and this seems to indicate that, for the most part, the universe abides by consistent laws, and that God's interactions with it manage to maintain that consistency.
It's interesting. If Mormons think that the paradox about "God not being able to create a rock He cannot lift" being laughable because they admit He is limited, Jews find it laughable because they believe it is not a limitation to not be able to limit one's self.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent.
Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
I don't know that there are "forces" that can do things God cannot do. But here are some limitations that God has:
God cannot circumvent the effects of sin without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
God cannot force someone to choose to obey his commandments.
God cannot create a world in which we gain the experience he wants us to have without also exposing us to sin, pain, and misery.
God cannot commit sin and remain God.
In Judaism, God = Morality. They are one and the same. God cannot sin because He is God. There is no possibility to say that IF He sins, He can't be God anymore.
Basically, It seems that in Mormonism there is an external existence in which God is merely a player. That seems polytheistic to me because there is existence beyond God. And who created THAT existence?
Is the Old Testament considered doctrine in Mormonism? Or do they believe it has been corrupted - I forget.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And who created THAT existence?
I believe it's turtles all the way down. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And who created THAT existence?
I believe it's turtles all the way down.
God = Existence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you want to define it that way. Of course, even the depictions of God in the Jewish Bible seem to imply a sentience independent of the concept of existence itself, but that's just one of those religious paradoxes. *grin*
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If you want to define it that way. Of course, even the depictions of God in the Jewish Bible seem to imply a sentience independent of the concept of existence itself, but that's just one of those religious paradoxes. *grin*
I'd be interested to hear those examples, if you don't mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Basically, It seems that in Mormonism there is an external existence in which God is merely a player. That seems polytheistic to me because there is existence beyond God. And who created THAT existence?
"Merely a player?"
Well, He's still God. But yep-- we admit impediments.
quote:Is the Old Testament considered doctrine in Mormonism? Or do they believe it has been corrupted - I forget.
It's considered doctrine, but with caveats. Did you have a specific question about how Mormonism interprets a certain doctrine within the Old Testament?
quote: And who created THAT existence?
I believe it's turtles all the way down.
It's unrevealed as yet. But like every other Mormon whose ever thought about these things, I've got some wicked-cool ideas about it.
Well, they're cool to me. Probably heresy to anyone else...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Scott, the words of Jesus carry more weight because Jesus (for us) is God. Paul was not.
But Jesus didn't write the Bible, kmboots.
quote:I also believe that the people who were writing it down (and those who chose what became canon) were people - rooted in a specific time and place and context with their own ideas and brains and wills.
Consider:
1) If you believe that Paul was a prophet and that the Bible teaches the uncorrupted Gospel, then shouldn't his words weigh as much as Christ's? They spring from the same source, after all-- God.
2) If you believe the record of Paul's words can be corrupted by men with their own ideas, brains, and will, how is the record of Christ's words any different? In this case, both the words of Christ and the words of Paul are equally suspect.
3) If neither of the two apply to you, how do you explain the ability of Christ's words to remain uncorrupted throughout the years, and why wouldn't that ability apply also to Paul?
I don't believe that Paul was a prophet. Or if he was, his letters were not prophecies. I think Paul's words are (probably) pretty much as he wrote them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
Of course, being a God in Mormonism means something different than what most people think of.
1) We will still worship and honor God as the Father of our spirits and our Creator, and Jesus Christ as the Savior.
2) Being a god means having a family in the life after this, and being able to have children throughout eternity. It means marriage and parenthood according to laws that God (or the universe, depending on who you ask) has established.
3) We don't know a whole lot more than that about it, save that Joseph Smith said that it would take a LONG time to get to that point, even after salvation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't believe that Paul was a prophet. Or if he was, his letters were not prophecies. I think Paul's words are (probably) pretty much as he wrote them.
Option 4!
How did you come to this conclusion?
Were the men who copied down/authored the gospels prophets? Why give their words more weight than Paul's?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Of course, being a God in Mormonism means something different than what most people think of.
I dunno. What I hear most frequently from members is how they look forward to creating their own worlds. That's pretty much the most basic concept of what a god is - a supernatural creator.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have a feeling the discussion will have moved on by the time I post this, but I'll go for it anyways. This is in response to Armoth's comments on a Mormon God being omnipotent (or not being more to the point).
quote:An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. For if he did not, in the first instance, believe him to be God, that is, the creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in him for life and salvation, for fear there should be a greater than he, who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfil his promises; but seeing he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting, the creator and upholder of all things, no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in him, so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering. ... For without the idea of the existence of these attributes in the Deity, men could not exercise faith in him for life and salvation; seeing that without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures, by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men, that God had all knowledge, it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him.
And it is not less necessary that men should have the idea of the existence of the attribute power in the Deity. For, unless God had power over all things, and was able, by his power, to control all things, and thereby deliver his creatures who put their trust in him, from the power of all beings that might seek their destruction, whether in heaven, on earth, or in hell, men could not be saved; but with the idea of the existence of this attribute, planted in the mind, men feel as though they had nothing to fear, who put their trust in God, believing that he has power to save all who come to him, to the very uttermost.
This is (mainly) why I always describe God as omnipotent. I've learned here that I am apparently familiar with a different definition than most people use though. To me omnipotence means having all power that is available in the universe; I've learned to many (most?) it means power to do anything. God (as understood by Mormons) has the first but not the second. He has all knowledge, and all power that is available. Meaning there is no other God, or chance of a God that could be more powerful, or play a spoiling role in the plan of salvation. Joseph Smith acknowledged that without certain guarantees of the attributes and characteristics of God one could not have faith in Him to save His children as He might be thwarted by known powers or laws. Thus he (Joseph Smith) enumerated what those attributes and characteristics were and included omnipotence (as I understand it) and omniscience to set our hearts at ease.
Hope that made sense.
*The Lectures on Faith has a rather interesting and confusing history. I wont get into it, but just to give a perspective of how reliable it is considered as a text a few words. Its actual content is most often attributed to Joseph Smith directly, though most "scholars" of the work (quotations as even I'm not sure what I mean by that) seem to think it was written by another Church leader under Joseph Smith's direction. For a time it was in the LDS scriptures but was removed after deciding that the lack of a Church wide vote kept it from being official cannon. I think that most Mormons would consider it to be, while not doctrine per-se, as close as one could get without being there. Perhaps equivalent to the words of a modern day prophet? I'm sure it varies from member to member but in the end it is not scripture, but is highly regarded by most as being a trusted source.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Of course, being a God in Mormonism means something different than what most people think of.
I dunno. What I hear most frequently from members is how they look forward to creating their own worlds. That's pretty much the most basic concept of what a god is - a supernatural creator.
Huh, I mostly hear that as a joke. Not that I'm doubting you, I imagine it's different in Utah but most members are reluctant to talk about becoming Gods, or certainly wouldn't be so cavalier about the guesses they have of what it will be like. As Scott said there's a not a lot of comment on what it means, but it doesn't mean what most people seem to think it does when they first hear it (this is based on my mission experience of constantly listening to people describe to me how ridiculous a concept it is).
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: I predict no theist will have the honesty to give straightforward answers to any of these questions.
If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
No idea. She probably would have unless, perhaps, enough people were praying for her family to get her to a hospital. Maybe praying with her family that she go to a hospital. Again, prayer isn't a lucky rabbit's foot.
quote:
Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
I don't think that God "strikes" anyone with disease.
quote: Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
Neither. Their faith was ignorant and misguided at best and arrogant at worst.
quote:
It would be nice to get lots of answers to these questions, just so that were all know where we disagree. For instance, we already know Ron's answer about the God's correctness in killing or sickening children, but I bet not all the theists will agree with him.
But there's no way to know unless the theists go on record with some specific claims. I think that this is a good place to start.
Happy to go on the record as disagreeing with Ron.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: I imagine it's different in Utah but most members are reluctant to talk about becoming Gods
Well, it's not like it's a common topic of conversation and I probably hear people claiming a prohibition against caffeine about as frequently, so I recognize that it's not necessarily doctrinal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I don't believe that Paul was a prophet. Or if he was, his letters were not prophecies. I think Paul's words are (probably) pretty much as he wrote them.
Option 4!
How did you come to this conclusion?
Were the men who copied down/authored the gospels prophets? Why give their words more weight than Paul's?
How are you using the word "prophet"? Maybe we are using it differently.
I think that the Gospel writers (the Synoptic ones anyway - I am a bit fuzzy about John) faithfully recorded the stories about Jesus that they had learned. They were also writing to specific groups and were human, "non-supernatural" people but there is enough "reinforcement" of certain themes that I believe I can trust them. Paul has a lot of really good stuff to say but they are his words. Inspired words but not the word of God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hobbes, when I say the Mormon God is not omnipotent, I generally mean -- quite specifically -- that He does not set the requirements for salvation and is bound by laws which require Him to permit pain and suffering. Mormon doctrine in this way sidesteps the classical Problem of Evil; the Mormon God has to let innocents suffer, because He does not have the power to prevent it without jeopardizing His purpose. A God omnipotent by the standards of most Christians would, by comparison, have chosen to create the universe in such a way that innocents would suffer.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Prophet-- someone who has the authority to speak for God for humanity in general.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Inspired words but not the word of God.
Isn't that what inspired words are? Or are you using the secular meaning of the word "inspired"?
quote:Hobbes, when I say the Mormon God is not omnipotent, I generally mean -- quite specifically -- that He does not set the requirements for salvation and is bound by laws which require him to permit pain and suffering
Which is perfectly reasonable (referring to your definition). We've had this conversation before but basically, while I'm more than willing to use others definitions when discussing it, omnipotent to me has always meant "all available power" rather than "power to do anything". It didn't enter my lexicon as that when I joined the LDS Church. There's also a lot of religious language that I think gets needlessly confusing if referring to God as not omnipotent so I just prefer my definition. My post wasn't (I hope this was clear) an attempt to prove the LDS God is omnipotent, which is merely a semantic issue to me, but rather explain how the limitations of His power do not lead to a lack of faith or ability to provide salvation.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that God "strikes" anyone with disease.
I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this that doesn't sound like "gotcha" because that isn't my intent, I'm honestly looking for a better understand of what you believe.
If I've understood you correctly, you believe that everything is a part of God. If that's true, then it seems logically that disease and the suffering it brings are part of God. Isn't it then reasonable, when some one is "struck" with a terrible disease to say God "struck" him? What am I missing?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Prophet-- someone who has the authority to speak for God for humanity in general.
I am not sure that anyone but Jesus has that authority. And we only have records of His words. I think that the Scriptures speak of God or, at least, of humanity's relationship with God.
I was using "prophet" somewhat differently - more as someone who has a "supernatural" way of knowing things that are unknowable by others.
[ February 07, 2011, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I need to give your posts some more thought, kmboots. The problem I have with the criteria you've posted is that it seems fairly easy to discount what might be commandment.
Why do you consider Paul's writings 'inspired, but not the word of God?'
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
I would have taken her to the hospital, praying for her the whole time. I would have prayed for the doctors; prayed for her health; and prayed for her parents. I would have prayed to know God's will, and to put my heart in line with what it is He wants. I would have followed the doctor's instructions for care with the same amount of dedication that I try to follow God's commandments.
Come now. "Straightforward" means answering the questions I asked. You didn't do that, exactly as I knew you would not.
I'll repeat it again:
If you had prayed for Kara Neumann, if you had had faith that God would heal her without the intervention of weak, fallible mortals, would she have died of diabetic complications? Yes or no?
quote:I believe God listens to our prayers, and responds.
Of course. Mrs. Neumann told hospital staff that she would not need funeral services, because her daughter would be resurrected. A helpful response, you think?
Was that response objectively distinguishable from no response at all?
quote:I believe that prayer allows us to draw closer to him to hear and understand his response.
Wonderful. Why don't you ask for a response in the form of something that would save lives, like the synthesis of the next blockbuster anti-malaria drug?
Ah, but you can't. You will recoil at the idea of God actually doing something detectable and useful, right? God will help a healthy adult like BlackBlade get over a cold faster, but won't lift a finger to save a girl dying because he gave her diabetes, right?
quote:There are too many variables to come up with a consistent, rational answer; ultimately, I have faith that he knows more than I do.
So did the Neumanns! They had faith in God that he would heal, if not resurrect their daughter.
quote:Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
No;
Good, a straightforward answer. You might have to take it up with Ron, as he approvingly quoted a women he knows who believes just that.
quote:but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either.
Okay, so how do we determine if a given phenomena is caused by God or not? A child gets a deadly disease. Light and Ron have argued that God does sometimes kill children, so how do you determine which children killed by disease were killed by God, and which were killed by something that God isn't morally responsible for?
For instance, how do you determine if Kara's diabetes was God's doing or not?
quote:Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent. I believe, however, that he can turn all tragedy, no matter how deep, into strength when we turn to him and try to understand what he's doing to us.
Can you try to explain exactly what God did to Kara Neumann?
quote:I'm reminded of an instance when Jesus was asked to heal a man who had been born blind. His disciples wondered if the man was being punished, or if the man's parents had committed some sin that caused his blindness. Christ's answer was that the man was blind in order to show God's greatness; and then he healed him.
Oh, so some of our fellow men and women are object lessons so that the privileged whom God wants to educate can learn a thing or two. What a wonderful sentiment.
quote:Sometimes, tragedy strikes to teach the individual a lesson; sometimes tragedy strikes to teach individuals around the afflicted a lesson.
Substitute "a thinking, feeling child is killed" for "tragedy strikes", and then see if you still like the sound of your sentiment.
Well, a child is dead for your lesson, can you at least show that the sacrifice is worth it by explaining what lesson was learned?
I believe that Kara was a sentient person who ought to have had a full life of thinking and talking, and feeling and living, and that her right to do so is absolutely not trumped by your need to "learn something" that I bet you can't even express. No, not even if a non-omnipotent God says otherwise.
But I guess you disagree.
quote:
quote:Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
I don't know the Neumanns; I can't answer this question directly.
Oh come, I quoted them. And the evidence of what they did is clear, and their faith is the reason they gave for doing it. Can't you even try to draw a conclusions from a given set of facts?
They trusted in God. Do you think they were wrong to do this? Yes or no?
quote:
quote:Infants who die of malaria before they are old enough to think get nothing out of their so-called "learning experience" of life.
In Mormonism, mortality is not the first time we're aware. We believe in a life before this one in which we were individuals, aware, and intelligent, but in which we were bodiless. Mormonism holds that we agreed to come to this life, even knowing the grief and pain that would be waiting here for us, just for a chance to get a body. While an infant isn't cognizant as we'd recognize it of its situation, if the child dies, the spirit that rises from it is completely aware of what it has experienced; it retains all its character, knowledge and understanding from its pre-earth life.
If one wanted to make an argument that it was fundamentally alright for infants to die, because they really had a decent life, and they knew what they were getting into, and they chose it anyway, how would that argument differ from what you just laid out?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I need to give your posts some more thought, kmboots. The problem I have with the criteria you've posted is that it seems fairly easy to discount what might be commandment.
Why do you consider Paul's writings 'inspired, but not the word of God?'
Because they were the words of Paul. Inspired by God. Maybe we had better define "inspired" as well. Paul's relationship with God, his experience of God, inspired him to do a lot of things including write down some pretty cool stuff in letters to various congregations he was nurturing. Not "inspired" as Paul was taking dictation from God.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
I still don't understand what distinguishes your criteria about what Paul wrote from what others wrote about Jesus.
Why are Jesus' recorded words more valuable than Paul's?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
swbarnes:
Dude. Sometimes 'yes' or 'no' are not honest answers.
I'm comfortable with what I've already written, and I don't think I need to explain further.
Maybe if you try approaching the conversation with a little less acidity, we can try again.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Is the Old Testament considered doctrine in Mormonism? Or do they believe it has been corrupted - I forget.
It's considered doctrine, but with caveats. Did you have a specific question about how Mormonism interprets a certain doctrine within the Old Testament?
Deuteronomy 4:39 - "You are to know this day and take to your heart, that Hashem He is the God in heaven above and on the earth below - there is nothing other than Him."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: kmboots:
I still don't understand what distinguishes your criteria about what Paul wrote from what others wrote about Jesus.
Why are Jesus' recorded words more valuable than Paul's?
I think maybe we are going around in circles. Jesus's words are more valuable than Paul's because Jesus is God. We weren't there, so all we have is a record of the stories people told about him.
We have Paul's letters (sort of-some may or may not be written by Paul) but Paul wasn't God.
Oooh. Wouldn't it be cool if Jesus wrote more letters! And we had them. But we don't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2: I'm still not comfortable discussing religion with you as we have unresolved business. But I did want to offer you two bits of clarification.
1: You might want to back off on Scott just a little bit, and have a bit more tact. The things you are discussing are very real to him and his family, as he has a daughter who is very sick, and I am certain he agnonizes over what to do for her more than any one person should have to.
2:
quote:Ah, but you can't. You will recoil at the idea of God actually doing something detectable and useful, right? God will help a healthy adult like BlackBlade get over a cold faster, but won't lift a finger to save a girl dying because he gave her diabetes, right?
Quit marginalizing what I went through. I wouldn't have even prayed over a cold in most instances, I have had fevers where I didn't utilize prayer because I felt rest and proper diet would be just as effective.
In this instance where I did pray, I was very sick. I couldn't eat, I threw up anything I ingested, I was bleeding out of my rectum regularly, I had terrible fevers, and the doctors didn't know what was wrong with me. I was a missionary at the time, and was completely unable to work. I tried, it ended up with me throwing up on the side of the road, simultaneously crapping my pants, and nearly collapsing. I had exploratory surgery scheduled.
I'm not trying to put myself up on a pedestal with a young diabetic girl who died. I was sick for an entire week, and my symptoms were just as bad as they had ever been the day I got a blessing. I was completely healed and eating a burger 12 hours later.
Anyway, this may not change your mind, but though this girl's death is a terrible thing, my own circumstances were not exactly a day at the beach. You should stop trying to contrast the two of them.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
I always interpreted it as saying, you will not have any other gods before me. Meaning there may in fact be other gods, you just better put the big G first.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I have a feeling the discussion will have moved on by the time I post this, but I'll go for it anyways. This is in response to Armoth's comments on a Mormon God being omnipotent (or not being more to the point).
quote:An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. For if he did not, in the first instance, believe him to be God, that is, the creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in him for life and salvation, for fear there should be a greater than he, who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfil his promises; but seeing he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting, the creator and upholder of all things, no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in him, so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering. ... For without the idea of the existence of these attributes in the Deity, men could not exercise faith in him for life and salvation; seeing that without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures, by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men, that God had all knowledge, it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him.
And it is not less necessary that men should have the idea of the existence of the attribute power in the Deity. For, unless God had power over all things, and was able, by his power, to control all things, and thereby deliver his creatures who put their trust in him, from the power of all beings that might seek their destruction, whether in heaven, on earth, or in hell, men could not be saved; but with the idea of the existence of this attribute, planted in the mind, men feel as though they had nothing to fear, who put their trust in God, believing that he has power to save all who come to him, to the very uttermost.
This is (mainly) why I always describe God as omnipotent. I've learned here that I am apparently familiar with a different definition than most people use though. To me omnipotence means having all power that is available in the universe; I've learned to many (most?) it means power to do anything. God (as understood by Mormons) has the first but not the second. He has all knowledge, and all power that is available. Meaning there is no other God, or chance of a God that could be more powerful, or play a spoiling role in the plan of salvation. Joseph Smith acknowledged that without certain guarantees of the attributes and characteristics of God one could not have faith in Him to save His children as He might be thwarted by known powers or laws. Thus he (Joseph Smith) enumerated what those attributes and characteristics were and included omnipotence (as I understand it) and omniscience to set our hearts at ease.
Hope that made sense.
*The Lectures on Faith has a rather interesting and confusing history. I wont get into it, but just to give a perspective of how reliable it is considered as a text a few words. Its actual content is most often attributed to Joseph Smith directly, though most "scholars" of the work (quotations as even I'm not sure what I mean by that) seem to think it was written by another Church leader under Joseph Smith's direction. For a time it was in the LDS scriptures but was removed after deciding that the lack of a Church wide vote kept it from being official cannon. I think that most Mormons would consider it to be, while not doctrine per-se, as close as one could get without being there. Perhaps equivalent to the words of a modern day prophet? I'm sure it varies from member to member but in the end it is not scripture, but is highly regarded by most as being a trusted source.
Hobbes
Thanks. Makes sense. But the reason why I describe omnipotence (the power to do ANYTHING) to God is not because I'm afraid someone else is going to come along. It has to do with my questions about the universe to begin with - Who created this universe? God? Okay. Who created God? No one - God = existence. Once you say that God has rules and that He did not create them, what is the source of those rules and principles, and who created them?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
Within the context of Mormonism, they are completely harmonious.
But justifying Mormon doctrine through a Jewish understanding? I don't think I'm going to attempt it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
That is understood (to me) to mean that for us, there are no other God's who have anything to do with us, and so neither do we have anything to do with them. One God created the universe we exist within, he is our father, and our creator.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: One God created the universe we exist within
Is that doctrinal? I thought Mormon cosmology was not specific on the universe itself and only addressed that God (actually Jesus, I think) was responsible for the creation of the earth and/or "other worlds".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.
I don't believe that is canonical, but it's an interesting data point on a Mormon understanding on God. Click on the link for rest of that sermon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote: One God created the universe we exist within
Is that doctrinal? I thought Mormon cosmology was not specific on the universe itself and only addressed that God (actually Jesus, I think) was responsible for the creation of the earth and/or "other worlds".
Well I did say, "for me".
God (the father) directed Jesus to create our world and other worlds without number. All with inhabitants that God (the father) created spiritually. Whether those other worlds exist within this universe, or in some other place is not stated specifically.
Were we to find another planet with life (intelligent or otherwise) I would say there is a very strong possibility they have the same creator. The boundaries of God's (the father) kingdom as it pertains to say his own father's kingdom is not discussed in the scriptures.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:...I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
It's worth noting, I think, that with the appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, you can believe anything.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:...I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
It's worth noting, I think, that with the appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, you can believe anything.
When I was in 6th grade, my best friend convinced me and a bunch of other guys that we were wizards. Fun times.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I used to get kids to believe I had magical powers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I seriously believed, at the age of 4, that I could control fish with my mind.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: It has to do with my questions about the universe to begin with - Who created this universe? God? Okay. Who created God? No one - God = existence. Once you say that God has rules and that He did not create them, what is the source of those rules and principles, and who created them?
Well I guess then my answer was more in line with your polytheism question (the "do you believe in other Gods?" one). However, I think this is good groundwork to answer you next question. I don't know who created the universe or God. It's one of those doctrinally vague areas. Presumably because it has little to do with our salvation or how to live our lives (thus intellectually interesting but of no other value to our lives here). I think within the LDS community you'll find a split on if God created this universe (the way you'd mean that sentence) or if He created only parts of it, specifically the part we are in. Joseph Smith said that the word creation means to organize rather than to create the material itself (the way we create building for instance) and I find that use prevalent enough in the Church that statements about who created what to be at best ambivalent. When it comes to this Earth and those who populate it the doctrine is crystal clear. More remote truths, outside of our sphere of influence are left up to interpretation (i.e. guessing). Who created God? Matt referenced the most quoted source on the subject but he's also right that it's not doctrine. The subject of God's creation is one that just isn't really discussed by the scriptures or the prophets so we can through out guesses but there's no real information.
I know many thiests who subscribe to the idea that God as the source of existence clears up the question of where He came from, and I feel like you have some version of that with God is Existence, but frankly I've never understood that. I'm willing to leave it an open question but I guess I don't understand how giving God the power to do anything solves the issue of where He came from. I guess you can say that in that definition He has the power to overcome logic but then I certainly wont be able to understand what you mean after you take that step. I mean that's definitional right? I can't understand because it's beyond understanding. Which to me is at best no better than just saying I don't know where He came from.
[Reading over this I think I come off a little more argumentative than I meant to. I can't figure out how else to word it so just take this note I'm not trying to attack, I'm just at a loss to understand the issue you have. ]
Hobbes Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you.
Is that good enough of a philosophy for you?
As for God "killing" infants, I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
I certainly do act as if everything depends on me. Why would I act otherwise?
If God has the power to save an infant, and he doesn't, then he has to take responsibility. If I see a child choking and I just sit and watch, instead of trying to help them, I'd be a monster. Why does God get a free pass?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow:
quote:Why does God get a free pass?
It's not a free pass in the sense that God can do as he pleases. I believe in a God that is ultimately good.
You would be a monster for failing to assist the choking child because we should operate on the default of preserving life and helping others when we can be reasonably asked to do so.
God, having the futures and destinies of all before him at all times can make decisions that from our limited stand point do not make any sense. We are expected to do our best with the information we have been given, and give an honest account of it. God can be expected to account for the decisions he himself also makes when he judges us.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:As for God "killing" infants, I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
Not to cross threads, but if my understanding of the Old Testament is correct, God killed at least hundreds of thousands of infants directly with the flood and tenth plague. No need for passive non-intervention to lay that charge on him.
How exactly do you reconcile that with above quote, Light?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:God, having the futures and destinies of all before him at all times can make decisions that from our limited stand point do not make any sense.
See, that dog don't hunt (from my perspective, at least). It makes sense that the Mormon God doesn't save the choking child because to do so would somehow violate the free will of the adults who're standing around, allowing that child to choke -- or the free will of the child, who chose to eat something on which he's now choking -- and that this somehow violates a fundamental law of the universe by which God is bound.
But saying that God's allowing the child to choke because it's just part of His ineffable plan is, I believe, fairly ridiculous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you.
Is that good enough of a philosophy for you?
As for God "killing" infants, I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
I certainly do act as if everything depends on me. Why would I act otherwise?
If God has the power to save an infant, and he doesn't, then he has to take responsibility. If I see a child choking and I just sit and watch, instead of trying to help them, I'd be a monster. Why does God get a free pass?
Why do we? We allow infants and children to die all the time without lifting a finger. Or at least without doing everything in our power to save them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kate, if you're arguing that God gets lazy and distracted, or occasionally has trouble keeping things in perspective, I'll grant the appropriateness of that response. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was responding to MightyCow's notion that we are monsters.
Of course, since we are part of God and God of us...that does lead to some need to take responsibility on our part.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote: One God created the universe we exist within
Is that doctrinal? I thought Mormon cosmology was not specific on the universe itself and only addressed that God (actually Jesus, I think) was responsible for the creation of the earth and/or "other worlds".
Mormon cosmology does not specify what it means by universe.
Again, this may be heresy, but another way of thinking about it is instead of 'universe' think of it as 'reality.'
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
LIGHT, why would God allow children to be born where they "didn't stand a chance"? That doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This is literally an argument over the righteous act of god toasting babies who he had born into situations where they, quote unquote, 'didn't stand a chance.'
A little surreal, that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We allow infants and children to die all the time without lifting a finger. Or at least without doing everything in our power to save them.
God's vastly more powerful. If God is omnipotent in the classic sense, I'm not sure he's got an out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure we do either.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: LIGHT, why would God allow children to be born where they "didn't stand a chance"? That doesn't make any sense.
What is your answer to this question. You believe in God, don't you?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote: It has to do with my questions about the universe to begin with - Who created this universe? God? Okay. Who created God? No one - God = existence. Once you say that God has rules and that He did not create them, what is the source of those rules and principles, and who created them?
Well I guess then my answer was more in line with your polytheism question (the "do you believe in other Gods?" one). However, I think this is good groundwork to answer you next question. I don't know who created the universe or God. It's one of those doctrinally vague areas. Presumably because it has little to do with our salvation or how to live our lives (thus intellectually interesting but of no other value to our lives here). I think within the LDS community you'll find a split on if God created this universe (the way you'd mean that sentence) or if He created only parts of it, specifically the part we are in. Joseph Smith said that the word creation means to organize rather than to create the material itself (the way we create building for instance) and I find that use prevalent enough in the Church that statements about who created what to be at best ambivalent. When it comes to this Earth and those who populate it the doctrine is crystal clear. More remote truths, outside of our sphere of influence are left up to interpretation (i.e. guessing). Who created God? Matt referenced the most quoted source on the subject but he's also right that it's not doctrine. The subject of God's creation is one that just isn't really discussed by the scriptures or the prophets so we can through out guesses but there's no real information.
I know many thiests who subscribe to the idea that God as the source of existence clears up the question of where He came from, and I feel like you have some version of that with God is Existence, but frankly I've never understood that. I'm willing to leave it an open question but I guess I don't understand how giving God the power to do anything solves the issue of where He came from. I guess you can say that in that definition He has the power to overcome logic but then I certainly wont be able to understand what you mean after you take that step. I mean that's definitional right? I can't understand because it's beyond understanding. Which to me is at best no better than just saying I don't know where He came from.
[Reading over this I think I come off a little more argumentative than I meant to. I can't figure out how else to word it so just take this note I'm not trying to attack, I'm just at a loss to understand the issue you have. ]
Hobbes
Don't let me forget to answer this. I'd like to on my own, but I have a great philosophy book that does a better job doing it than I would, and I'd prefer to quote from there...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It would honestly be better for them to not live than to live in perpetual and unrelenting sin and darkness. If God (in the very rare occasions) does happen to take a life, be assured that He knows what He is doing....You might think that you have a better idea of how to run this thing...
For the record, yes, I have a better idea of how to ensure that children born to evil parents do not grow up shadowed by their parents' evil, if by "better" you mean "does not kill a bunch of innocent children."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Here's where I have a problem with this whole problem of evil. I, MightyCow, am incredibly more loving, forgiving, moral, kind, just, and righteous than the God of the Bible, in any measure that doesn't give God a free pass to kill, torture, and ignore suffering because he's God.
To claim that God is somehow right to do all these things for some unknown reason just sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is there Scripture that explains why God would kill a bunch of babies instead of, say, delivering them to other, better parents?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
LIGHT: Within your worldview, it is clear that people have the capacity to go from a state of sin to a state of grace, a state of hopelessness, to hope. It's the basis of missionary teaching, it's the basis of the doctrine of salvation.
What was it about S & G that made it impossible for God to save ANY of those people (except Lot and his Daughters, who, by the way, later got him drunk so they could rape him and have his children).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, of course I believe in God. I think that your understanding of God is wrong. I don't believe that God destroyed those cities any more than I believe God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to punish sinners.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
It's funny - this whole conversation gives the lie to that alleged Dostoevsky quote - if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
And yet, it's always the theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies. Seems the line should be reversed: "If God exists, everything is permissible."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Do you believe God controls the weather?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: it's always the theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies.
It will always be theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies. Atheists use other things to justify the slaughter of babies...It would just be silly for an atheists to use God as an excuse to slaughter babies.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Sure, you can bring up Pol Pot... but the big difference is that none of the atheists in this conversation are defending slaughter. It's the theists doing all the justification.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It will always be theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies.
In this specific case, it is God Himself who is said by theists to have slaughtered babies, and we atheists are trying to figure out the justification.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If I see a child choking and I just sit and watch, instead of trying to help them, I'd be a monster.
What if you were omniscient and you knew that (1) the child would pass on to an afterlife where he would be eternally happy, (2) the child's death would inspire his parents to start a campaign for child safety which would save the lives of thousands of kids, (3) that if you intervened then it would cause far more bad in the long run than if you did not intervene, and (4) that in the afterlife the child will agree that his death was for the greater good and agree with the decision? Would you still be a monster if you knew all these things with absolute certainty and allowed it to happen?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you asserting that, in those cases in which God permits a child to die, these things -- or similar things -- are always true?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I have no problem accepting that it's possible that a being could be powerful enough and wise enough to know when suffering and death are better than the alternative, either via omniscience and reliable net joy calculus, or by some kind of compensatory damages award [like you get some kind of semi-permanent orgasmic experience that never gets old, or something so much better than that that I can't even think of it ], or simply with a more informed perspective on what is ultimately good.
So what? We have minds. We have to evaluate things based on what we can understand. Even if God is real, he hasn't shown us why/how he's justified in doing atrocious things (if you believe the stories of him doing these things), except (if you believe the stories) by "might makes right", which even our puny intellects have determined is immoral. Or, by some version of "you'll just have to trust me on this."
The 1,2,3,4 of your hypothetical justification has not been demonstrated to be how God works. It's just a post hoc rationalization of something that we aren't supposed to be able to understand in the first place (if you believe that God is so much wiser and more powerful that his actions cannot be evaluated by our pitiful selves).
I'd like to believe that God can explain to my satisfaction why he wants/allows/causes bad things to happen, but until he actually does, why would I bother working my way to the justification from the assumption that it's justified?
[ February 08, 2011, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Armoth, of course I believe in God.
Armoth is probably aware of this, but if anyone new to the board is posting, you should understand that when kmb says "I believe in God", you should read "I like to say the words `I believe in God', it makes me feel virtuous". She doesn't actually believe anything in the ordinary English meaning of the word.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Though, oddly, it seems to be sufficient for my priest.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Are you asserting that, in those cases in which God permits a child to die, these things -- or similar things -- are always true?
No, I'm asserting that we don't know all the consequences of any given act, and God presumably does - which puts God in a very very different situation than we are in when we face moral questions like that.
quote:I'd like to believe that God can explain to my satisfaction why he wants/allows/causes bad things to happen, but until he actually does, why would I bother working my way to the justification from the assumption that it's justified?
I'd like to believe my mechanic can explain to my satisfaction why he needs me to buy a new $500 part for my car. But sometimes he can't, or his explanation doesn't really make sense to me - and in that situation, I either have to choose to trust him or risk my car by not taking his advice.
And my car is far simpler to explain to me than the entire future course of events across the universe and the afterlife.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If you argue that God, in his ultimate compassion, was justified in killing the babies of Sodom and Gomorrah, than can you argue against euthanasia? If our choice is to allow someone to live in pain and suffering, or by a gentle pill, escort them to life everlasting, are we not as morally required to give them the pill as God was to those poor children?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See Tres' reply above, Darth, which directly addresses what he sees as the pertinent distinction.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Tresopax: If a positive consequence of the child dying is that other children would later be saved, then we know that saving children is a positive goal, and an omniscient God should be able to figure out a way to save each one individually.
You can't argue that God is omniscient, so he's probably doing things for a very good reason, but also argue that he can't come up with a better way to do things than the blunt, crude, sloppy way they are currently done, which involves disease, death, and horrible suffering.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Though, oddly, it seems to be sufficient for my priest.
Firstly, your priest likely 'believes' the same way; if he didn't you'd find another. Secondly, what incentive does he have to criticise your 'belief'? And thirdly, talk about your appeals to authority. If you were going to go that route, why not assert that your 'belief' is sufficient for your god? I'd be just as convinced, and you'd score extra snippiness points.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You can't argue that God is omniscient, so he's probably doing things for a very good reason, but also argue that he can't come up with a better way to do things than the blunt, crude, sloppy way they are currently done, which involves disease, death, and horrible suffering.
Why not? It's not hard to imagine a worse world than the one we have.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet neither is it hard to imagine a better one.
Heck, I do not think I exaggerate when I say that if someone randomly made you all-knowing, you could come up with some decent ideas to improve our existing situation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
My answer to the death of the child example was just intended to show how being omniscient makes a big difference in moral choices.
But yes, He could probably also come up with some way to save the children individually by rearranging other things about the universe. I would think that if saving children was His only goal, He could easily save every child. He could presumably just make everyone immortal. So the fact that He doesn't, I'd guess, means He has some reason for not doing so.
If God is omniscient then I think God knows perfectly what the world would be like if He set it up in such a way that everyone was perfect, nobody ever suffered, and there was no death. And I think He sees this world, suffering and all, as better in some significant way than that other hypothetical world - better in a way that would be impossible if He eliminated all suffering. I suspect suffering allows this world to be more meaningful than it would be without suffering. But this is something that might be much clearer to an omniscient god than it is to human beings with a very limited perspective. To us, our 100 years or so in this life and our happiness during that period seems most important, but there's no way for us to know if we'd feel the same way if we were omniscient.
I really don't know why God wouldn't give us a clear explanation of His purpose, although the Bible seems to suggest its because we wouldn't understand. So I see that as leaving us in a situation similar to that of me and my mechanic - we can choose to trust, or we can choose not to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course, if your mechanic were incapable of explaining to you why you needed a new fuel pump, we could suggest that you get a better mechanic.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: swbarnes:
Dude. Sometimes 'yes' or 'no' are not honest answers.
This is not one of those times. I asked a straightforward, simple yes/no question, and you deliberately dodged it
These are very simple questions. I believe that had you prayed for the health Kara Neumann, her beta cells would not have regenerated, and she still would have died due to her diabetes.
Do you disagree with that assessment?
quote:I'm comfortable with what I've already written, and I don't think I need to explain further.
That's great! The part where you said that some people have to die so that other people can learn things was elucidating. But I take it that you don't feel the need to tell anyone what lessons were gleaned from the death of children. I guess more children will have to die before we all learn it, right? Well, what matters isn't that an innocent child died, what matters is I'm one of the chosen people who's a pupil, not one of the others who turned out to be a lesson.
Or maybe, I'm one of the people who chose to be a pupil, and not one of the willing souls who chose to be a lesson? If that's the case, why should I feel bad for the lessons? That's so much easier.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kom, your complaint about snippiness points in this context is pretty funny!
ETA:
quote:You might want to back off on Scott just a little bit, and have a bit more tact. The things you are discussing are very real to him and his family, as he has a daughter who is very sick, and I am certain he agnonizes over what to do for her more than any one person should have to.
It's good to see what your response to this sort of respectful request is, swbarnes. It elucidates, one might say, your attitude towards other people for the community in general.
But allow me to address your complaint: the question itself isn't honest, nor is it straightforward. It's a trick, a rigged game. Asking Scott, "Do you believe your prayers would cure a child of a serious disease?" is a deceptive, rigged question because he wouldn't rely on prayer alone to do that. Of course you know that because you're not an idiot, but because you persist in behaving very rudely on this topic you're going to act as though this is a big, "A HA! moment!" when of course it obviously isn't.
There's nothing inherent in belief in the power of prayer that requires belief in the power of prayer exclusively. Honestly, that's such a fundamental bit of knowledge about how religions believe themselves that the fact that you're bringing out your accusing finger over this serves to highlight the very dishonest method in which you're participating in this discussion. Scott is perfectly within his rights not to participate further in the discussion with you, and your question isn't straightforward. Technically straightforward =/ straightforward.
[ February 08, 2011, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There's nothing inherent in belief in the power of prayer that requires belief in the power of prayer exclusively.
How about requiring prayer to have some sort of effect whatsoever? It seems to me that someone who does not believe (medicine+prayer) works better, in a measurable, repeatable way, than medicine alone (or prayer alone) does not really have any belief about the power of prayer. He just likes to repeat the words, in an effort to feel he's doing something. (I admit that this is actually not that different from a lot of modern medicine, but that's a separate discussion.) So the question might be, "Do you think that prayer makes the medicine more effective?" And if the answer is no, then I don't see that there is a belief in the power of prayer at all; there's just a habit.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How about this: There exist many atheists, and in fact, many more non-Christians. Sometimes, specific events cause people to lose their faith.
If God's overall goal isn't to save innocent children, many Christians will say that it's to become closer to his followers, or have us all become Christian, or allow us to enjoy the grace and love of his worship or however you like to word it.
If God can act on earth, why not act to prevent people from losing faith?
I don't accept the cop-out that it invalidates free will, because you can make a situation where people will freely choose to keep their faith, by eliminating whatever would have caused them to lose it, be that a priest molesting a child or a rival religion convincing them to join or a dying child or a YouTube video of Sam Harris.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Someone needs to email Sam Harris and tell him to stop doing the Lord's work immediately.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You might want to back off on Scott just a little bit, and have a bit more tact. The things you are discussing are very real to him and his family, as he has a daughter who is very sick, and I am certain he agnonizes over what to do for her more than any one person should have to.
I know that. Frankly, expected a more firm "The Neumanns were horribly wrong, they should have known that sick children die when they receive nothing but prayer. There is a thousand year long history of dead children demonstrating what happens when God, and not proven medical science, are trusted to treat dangerously ill children."
But the point of asking questions is to get answers I didn't expect.
quote:It's good to see what your response to this sort of respectful request is, swbarnes. It elucidates, one might say, your attitude towards other people for the community in general.
Okay, sure. Strike that argument, I'll leave BlackBlade out of things entirely. Kara had no beta cells. Her parents trusted in God and the power of prayer completely, and she died of diabetes. Anyone disagree with that?
quote:But allow me to address your complaint: the question itself isn't honest, nor is it straightforward. It's a trick, a rigged game. Asking Scott, "Do you believe your prayers would cure a child of a serious disease?" is a deceptive, rigged question because he wouldn't rely on prayer alone to do that.
I wouldn't jump in front of a speeding train, are you claiming that I can't say what would happen if I did?
Because I can. I would be crushed. Organ failure, no functioning brain, I could go on.
Why would such a question be deceptive? You want to ask me what I would think if I did somehow wake up after such a thing, ask me. I won't think it's "rigged". I'll lay out the premises I'd be working under, make note of the ones that I currently hold that I would reject given the new circumstances, etc. It's not hard, it's not deceptive, or a trick at all. Why would it be?
quote:There's nothing inherent in belief in the power of prayer that requires belief in the power of prayer exclusively.
Light was exhorting people to trust "just a little" in God. Surely, the theists think that more is better, right? Where is the limit? No one seems willing to say, not even to say "the limit is when you trust God to save the life of your child. Don't trust God to do that." The Neumanns did, and Kara lost her life.
quote:Honestly, that's such a fundamental bit of knowledge about how religions believe themselves that the fact that you're bringing out your accusing finger over this serves to highlight the very dishonest method in which you're participating in this discussion.
Many religious people do believe in the power of using prayer exclusively. How is it dishonest to believe that some people believe this? And I wasn't asking if anyone here thought that prayer alone was a good idea, I wanted to know what they thought would happen if they tried it. So far, no one will even hazard a guess.
It would be the easiest thing in the world for the theists to say straightforwardly "If I had prayed for the healing of Kara Neumann, she still would have died of diabetes".
I suspect that some of the theists here really believe that to be the truth. But no one will say it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Don't let me forget to answer this. I'd like to on my own, but I have a great philosophy book that does a better job doing it than I would, and I'd prefer to quote from there...
quote:Kara had no beta cells. Her parents trusted in God and the power of prayer completely, and she died of diabetes. Anyone disagree with that?
Yes (i.e. me).
quote:Light was exhorting people to trust "just a little" in God. Surely, the theists think that more is better, right? Where is the limit? No one seems willing to say, not even to say "the limit is when you trust God to save the life of your child. Don't trust God to do that." The Neumanns did, and Kara lost her life.
Trust is a pretty broad thing. For instance I may have complete trust God will provide salvation for me should I keep the commandments He has given me, and there is no limit to that trust, no amount that is too much. So trusting God for a specific person has no limit in that sense. But your question went in another direction, or at least the way I read it it did. There you seem to be saying "where is the limit to trust when it comes to things you would trust Him to do?" In that version there are quite a lot of limits (at least for me). For instance, I wouldn't trust Him to tie my shoes, or to inflict pain on me. He may do either, but I have no reason to believe that He would so I do not trust Him to do so. In the explicit scenario given I trust He would act as most benefits me and others (such as my hypothetical daughter) and that may include saving my daughter's life without medical treatment. It may also include Him saving her life through or in tandem with medical treatment. Or it may not result in saving the life of my daughter.
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know that. Frankly, expected a more firm "The Neumanns were horribly wrong, they should have known that sick children die when they receive nothing but prayer. There is a thousand year long history of dead children demonstrating what happens when God, and not proven medical science, are trusted to treat dangerously ill children."
But the point of asking questions is to get answers I didn't expect.
Why don't you ask next if Nazis are bad, swbarnes, and should be scorned? If kicking puppies is awful? Though of course you're exaggerating quite a bit, since how much of medical science was 'proven' a thousand years ago? Sorry to interrupt your angry, insulting rant on the virtues of empirical science with a little fact n' stuff.
The point of asking Scott the question you asked him was not to get an answer you didn't expect. You're lying when you say that, and it's pretty obvious to anyone who read it, I feel very comfortable in saying. The point in asking that question, in that way, was an attempt at a zinger, to paint him into a corner, to get your, "A ha! moment." Everyone's done `em, and I've certainly done more than my fair share, and it will take a lot of persuasion for you to convince me you were sincerely seeking out an unexpected answer.
But even if it wasn't obvious, I have your own post to prove what your motive was: "You didn't do that, exactly as I knew you would not."
So let's just dispense with that bit of BS, shall we? Your motive wasn't truth-seeking seeking or perspective-learning, it was winning. That's fine, but since you're so blatant about it you may as well cop to it.
quote:I wouldn't jump in front of a speeding train, are you claiming that I can't say what would happen if I did?
Because I can. I would be crushed. Organ failure, no functioning brain, I could go on.
Why would such a question be deceptive? You want to ask me what I would think if I did somehow wake up after such a thing, ask me. I won't think it's "rigged". I'll lay out the premises I'd be working under, make note of the ones that I currently hold that I would reject given the new circumstances, etc. It's not hard, it's not deceptive, or a trick at all. Why would it be?
No, this is why it's a deceptive question: because you imply by asking the question that Scott, or anyone else you ask the question, is the sort of fellow who believes that prayer should be relied upon exclusively. It smacks of a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question. That's why it's a rigged question, and in this context it's particularly odious not just because of personal reasons but for the more general reason of, hey, awful situation overall.
Here's why it's a trick: why are you asking Scott, or anyone else around here for that matter, if they rely on prayer alone to accomplish something such as healing? You are aware that such people are an incredibly tiny minority of the entire population, right? And you know now that he isn't one of them. Yet still you persist. "What would happen..." "What would happen..." "What would happen..." Well, I can answer your question for my own part at least. In this case I think it's most likely she would have died. Now before you start on another colorful rant, please remember that I'm being much more careful in my use of words like 'most likely' than you are with your use of words like 'many'.
But of course if I were in that situation, I sure as hell wouldn't just be relying on prayer to get the job done anyway, which is why it's a deceptive question-pretty much my entire point.
quote:Light was exhorting people to trust "just a little" in God. Surely, the theists think that more is better, right? Where is the limit? No one seems willing to say, not even to say "the limit is when you trust God to save the life of your child. Don't trust God to do that." The Neumanns did, and Kara lost her life.
Wait a second, let me see if I understand this correctly. Light is a theist. Light is espousing one particular idea-trust 'just a little' in God. It is very likely that theists believe that 'more is better', therefore we can treat all theists as though they believe in this idea to its uttermost extreme until they've explicitly rejected it when asked in a cross-examination method? Disregarding how much of an outlier Light's perspective is on many issues around here even among theists as we have seen already from the limited time s/he has spent here?
Yes, that's a sound logical approach towards analyzing a population, swbarnes. Very scientific!
quote:Many religious people do believe in the power of using prayer exclusively. How is it dishonest to believe that some people believe this? And I wasn't asking if anyone here thought that prayer alone was a good idea, I wanted to know what they thought would happen if they tried it. So far, no one will even hazard a guess.
'Many'? Very precise language. What does that mean, exactly? I think that when you consider what that word means in the minds of most people, and then you consider how many religious people there actually are...no, not many religious people believe in using the power of prayer at all. Unless, somehow, the small minority of atheists and agnostics have a staggering over representation in our health care system in this and every other nation on the planet that is. Your central idea is critically flawed, but that's not surprising-it was very badly expressed in the first place. Or rather dishonestly expressed.
No, you weren't directly asking if anyone here thought, specifically, they should rely on the power of prayer alone. You were beating around that bush very blatantly, though, in such a way that it was quite clear. You're simply not that good at rhetoric or politics, swbarnes.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I can't believe no one brought this joke yet.
It's about a priest. He's in a desert,walking and praying, when he realizes he's in quicksand, and it's swallowing it. Suddenly, he sees a firemen's truck coming to him. The chief fireman tells him: "We're on our way to take care of a fire, but we can see you're in trouble. No problem, sir! We'll get you out of there in no time!" The priest answers: "no need, my brave man! I trust in God, He's the one who'll get me out of there".
Time passes, the sand swallows his legs, his torso. Then the truck comes back, and the chief fireman gets out again and asks the priest: "are you sure you don't need our help, sir? Only you have sand up to your neck!" The priest answers: "I trust in God and God only. You can leave me there."
More time passes, sand swallows the priest entirely and he dies. He goes to heaven, storms past St Peters and enters straight into God's office, yelling : "why the heck did you let me die there ? I had faith in you, why didn't you help me?" God raises his eyes to the man and says "I sent you the fire brigade twice, my son. What else did you expect me to do?"
[ February 09, 2011, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: swbarnes:
Dude. Sometimes 'yes' or 'no' are not honest answers.
This is not one of those times. I asked a straightforward, simple yes/no question, and you deliberately dodged it
I think I provided a pretty extensive and complete answer about how I'd behave in that situation. I don't think it can be categorized as a "dodge" under the normal definition of the word.
Unfortunately simple affirmation or denial on these topics doesn't feel completely honest to me. The audience here is biased enough that I feel that a deeper explanation is warranted.
Sorry, bro: ask all the questions you want, but you don't get to control the responses.
EDIT: That laugh smiley is WAAY too mean for my purposes. Think of it as a gentle laugh, rather than the raucous mockery it seems to be meant to convey.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would have said the "bro" conveyed more raucous mockery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anna, my guess is that no one has brought up that joke yet because it is kind of a cliche by now. But you have a point.
swbarnes, your understanding of prayer is fundamentally flawed. The Neumann's understanding of prayer is also fundamentally flawed. Not surprising; lots of people make this misunderstanding. Prayer is complicated. If by prayer you mean some magic, voodoo ritual to make God do something then, no, prayer would not have saved Kara from diabetes.
Is that sufficiently straightforward?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
It's an old joke, but it's still a good answer to swbarnes. I think.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've always heard it told with a man on the roof of his house in a flood, and God sent a rowboat, a motorboat, and a helicopter.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna: It's an old joke, but it's still a good answer to swbarnes. I think.
Did the priest actually pray to be saved? The joke doesn't say. Are you just saying God gets credit for whatever good stuff happens and that prayer is irrelevant?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The point of the joke is that God works through people and that people who expect magic tricks are looking for the wrong thing.
The application to the Kara tragedy would be God saying, "But I sent you doctors and scientists and insulin. What were you waiting for?"
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna: I can't believe no one brought this joke yet.
It's about a priest. He's in a desert,walking and praying, when he realizes he's in quicksand, and it's swallowing it. Suddenly, he sees a firemen's truck coming to him. The chief fireman tells him: "We're on our way to take care of a fire, but we can see you're in trouble. No problem, sir! We'll get you out of there in no time!" The priest answers: "no need, my brave man! I trust in God, He's the one who'll get me out of there".
Time passes, the sand swallows his legs, his torso. Then the truck comes back, and the chief fireman gets out again and asks the priest: "are you sure you don't need our help, sir? Only you have sand up to your neck!" The priest answers: "I trust in God and God only. You can leave me there."
More time passes, sand swallows the priest entirely and he dies. He goes to heaven, storms past St Peters and enters straight into God's office, yelling : "why the heck did you let me die there ? I had faith in you, why didn't you help me?" God raises his eyes to the man and says "I sent you the fire brigade twice, my son. What else did you expect me to do?"
While I agree that a story with some similarities to this one is the best way for the theist to answer swbarnes, I don't think this parable conveys the whole subtlety of the issue.
If one of God's top priorities is to give us our Free Will, it follows pretty directly that God can't act through other people to help us or to answer our prayers. When he gave us free will, he gave up all control over our actions. So if you're sinking in quick sand, and some other free human being saves you, that has to have been that person's choice, and not God's.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Are you just saying God gets credit for whatever good stuff happens and that prayer is irrelevant
No, I'm not. I'm saying that sometimes we humans have to be each other's angels. Prayer doesn't "work" this way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you just saying God gets credit for whatever good stuff happens and that prayer is irrelevant?
While that's the practical upshot, I don't think that's what they intend to say.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If one of God's top priorities is to give us our Free Will, it follows pretty directly that God can't act through other people to help us or to answer our prayers. When he gave us free will, he gave up all control over our actions. So if you're sinking in quick sand, and some other free human being saves you, that has to have been that person's choice, and not God's.
God can inspire the fire brigade to go where the priest is, and the people can decide to answer to that inspiration or not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not working through people as if we were automatons. When we do God's work through our free will being in sync with God's will. And that is a big part of what prayer does, bring our will closer to God's will and, therefore, doing God's work which is also our work.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you just saying God gets credit for whatever good stuff happens and that prayer is irrelevant?
While that's the practical upshot, I don't think that's what they intend to say.
Assuming there is no God.
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What Kate and Anna said.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If one of God's top priorities is to give us our Free Will, it follows pretty directly that God can't act through other people to help us or to answer our prayers. When he gave us free will, he gave up all control over our actions. So if you're sinking in quick sand, and some other free human being saves you, that has to have been that person's choice, and not God's.
You can "control" other people without taking away their free will. The simplest way to do this is by asking them to do something for you. If I ask a friend of mine to deliver a package of medicine to you which cures an illness you have, then I have acted to heal you, even though I acted through my friend - and I have done so without taking away his free will.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
By giving other people the opportunity to help us when we need help, God is providing those people with a chance to do good and be blessed for it, and us with a chance to show gratitude and reciprocate. Free will is multiplied rather than restricted.
By giving us free will God isn't necessarily giving us an unlimited range of choices every time. He is giving us the power to choose for ourselves between right and wrong. There might only be two choices. God will not force us to choose the right one, even if when we choose the wrong one we cause terrible harm to ourselves or others.
As we choose the right, the choices we have grow. As we choose wrong, our choices diminish. If I choose not to take meth when it is offered to me, I am able to continue freely making choices for myself in the future. If I choose to take the meth, very soon my choices are very, very limited.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
According to the Bible, God has a plan.
According to the Bible, God's plan is intricate and delicate and involves the Universe, down to every single little bird.
There are various kinds of prayer.
There are prayers of thanks.
There are prayers of affirmation.
But if I pray for God to change his plan, then I am working against his plan.
Working against God's plan is EVIL.
So if I lose my wallet and pray for God's help in finding it, I am being evil, for surely it was God's plan that I lose my wallet.
The priest sinking in the quicksand is part of God's plan. For the priest to pray to God to save him, to argue against the plan of God is to rebel against God. And we all know that those who rebel against God's plan find only death.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So if I lose my wallet and pray for God's help in finding it, I am being evil, for surely it was God's plan that I lose my wallet.
No, you lost your wallet because God wanted you to pray so he could demonstrate the power of prayer by allowing you to find your wallet.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The problem with your line of reasoning there is point 2: "According to the Bible, God's plan is intricate and delicate and involves the Universe, down to every single little bird."
God is aware of every bird, but does not force each person into a His plan, meaning each action taken does not reflect the will of God. Losing your wallet may have been cause by God, but is much more likely caused by you leaving it on the table after you paid for lunch.
quote:Working against God's plan is EVIL.
So if I lose my wallet and pray for God's help in finding it, I am being evil, for surely it was God's plan that I lose my wallet.
The priest sinking in the quicksand is part of God's plan. For the priest to pray to God to save him, to argue against the plan of God is to rebel against God. And we all know that those who rebel against God's plan find only death.
This reads as very condescending, as if you find those of faith discussing their silly ideas with you incredibly amusing and childish. Did you intend it that way or am I misreading here?
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You lost your wallet because sh** happens. By asking God for help, you are inviting him to help you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:God can inspire the fire brigade to go where the priest is...
Then why doesn't He do that every time there's a fire and the fire brigade doesn't know about it?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Vitamin C also does not cure diabetes, but that doesn't mean that people with diabetes should ignore or avoid Vitamin C.
Prayer has a certain role in a faithful person's life, but that role is not "when I pray for things, they magically happen, and I have no problems because they all can be resolved by praying hard enough".
The role is more analogous to calling your mother for advice during your first semester away from home in college. Only occasionally does she have the power or inclination to directly reach out and affect your life (via wire transfer!) and often, even the advice she gives doesn't necessarily pan out the way you imagine it will when she gives it.
But you do gain great benefit from having a wiser person to talk through your problems with, someone who can influence your own choices for the better and cut off unhelpful lines of reasoning, and who, very rarely, is actually in a position to directly help you out. Mostly, though, it's really just nice to be involved with each other and continue to maintain that relationship as you grow older and change.
To me, that's the role of prayer. It isn't some rain-dance-style rite designed to reliably induce miracles from on high. When people use it that way, I think they're doing it wrong. But believing that doesn't render prayer pointless and empty for me, either. It still has its value, and in a situation where a family member is in peril, I will be praying every time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why wouldn't God be in a position to help people out directly every time they call?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
But I think most religious people have trouble answering questions like, "If you prayed in X situation, would Y result occur?" because the question invokes the unknown quantity of "what God is inclined to do" which is something no one is willing to predict. In general, I think that people who believe in miracles, but who recognize their rarity, don't feel that they fully understand why some situations warrant intervention, while others don't, and so they are unwilling to assume one way or the other in a given case.
A typical religious person, in my experience, will pray hoping for the best, but will also prepare themselves for the worst.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whereas, from an agnostic point of view, I ask myself, "How would this situation be any different if God didn't exist?" And I'm left with no reason to conclude that it would.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:Why wouldn't God be in a position to help people out directly every time they call?
Tom, you've already recognized my position on that earlier in this thread. If God's entire plan is contingent on his children being exposed to the hazards of reality, rather than living in a playpen, then granting us carte blanche with miraculous intervention would make this entire experience pointless.
Given His eternal perspective on the pain of mortality, compared with the ramifications of NOT suffering pain in mortality, He gets to decide not to help us — the same way I decided to hold my daughter still while the doctor administered a very painful injection. It was awful for her, and felt like a betrayal to me, but I knew that the pain would end, and that vaccinating her was the best choice in the long run. So I did it.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:Whereas, from an agnostic point of view, I ask myself, "How would this situation be any different if God didn't exist?" And I'm left with no reason to conclude that it would.
This would be a valid response if I were presenting the purpose of prayer as a reason for an agnostic bystander to believe in God. Since I'm not, it's kind of a non-sequitur.
I use prayer because I already believe in it. I don't expect my experience with it to persuade anyone else.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If you lost your wallet because it was God's will, you didn't have a choice in the matter, which then means you wouldn't have free will.
If you lost it because you were careless, well that is your own fault. You could ask God for help, just don't get mad if it doesn't magically appear in your pocket. He may want you to learn something from your mistake Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If God's entire plan is contingent on his children being exposed to the hazards of reality, rather than living in a playpen, then granting us carte blanche with miraculous intervention would make this entire experience pointless.
Again, this one falls flat for me because people are allowed to die who could not possibly have learned something from that experience. Did God let them die so that other people might learn?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Again, this one falls flat for me because people are allowed to die who could not possibly have learned something from that experience. Did God let them die so that other people might learn?
Well, according to plenty of Christians, sure, Tom, that doesn't make much sense-but there are tons of religions, not just some sects of Christianity, wherein this makes plenty of sense, given that lots of religious systems don't have the idea that life and learning stops at death.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:Again, this one falls flat for me because people are allowed to die who could not possibly have learned something from that experience. Did God let them die so that other people might learn?
I don't think the point is necessarily for each individual experience to have a specifically-intended learning purpose. I think it's the exposure to danger and chaos in general that is part of the learning process.
Death, specifically, can be a learning experience for the friends, neighbors, and dependents of the deceased. But death also serves the purpose of ending an individual's mortal experience. If we didn't have death, then the pain of mortality would be eternal, and would take on an entirely different meaning and scale from God's perspective. But it is supposed to end, so that we can move on to other things.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Touching on the point from earlier, God would have a much better understanding of death than we do. Specifically, he would know exactly what happens to us after death, whereas we know extremely little about the answer to that question. This makes it practically impossible to cast any sort of judgement on questions of whether or not it was right or wrong for God to let someone die.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:God can inspire the fire brigade to go where the priest is...
Then why doesn't He do that every time there's a fire and the fire brigade doesn't know about it?
Maybe this really doesn't help the argument, since it's not really on par with most Christian doctrine, but I believe that God isn't all powerful. I think God is VERY powerful, maybe so powerful that if you give him any one specific task he'd always be able to accomplish it, but not totally, completely, absolutely in control of every aspect of the universe.
In other words, no, God cannot make a mountain so heavy he cannot move it.
In that scheme, the reason God doesn't always send a fire truck is because there is a cost to sending the fire truck, and sometimes that cost is too high, or, in some other way contrary to a purpose God is already working towards.
As for prayer... I pray. Sometimes my prayer is just talking to him, but often I ask for things. Every once in a while, God gives me what I asked for. More often, that's not what happens. Sometimes he gives me other things instead, and sometimes I feel like there's no answer at all. God really is very much like a parent.
For instance, what if my son were to ask me for a Snicker's bar? Well, sometimes I will know that a Snicker's bar won't hurt him, and will make him happy, so I give it to him. More often, however, I know that a Snicker's bar is not good for him and say no. Then (if I'm being a good parent) I figure out why he was asking for a Snicker's bar. If he was asking because he was hungry, I'll make him a healthy snack instead. If he was asking because he was bored, I'll try to entertain him. It goes on and on...
In real life, of course, it's much more complicated. I have to ask, at times, what could POSSIBLY be more important than the life of a child? Still, I'm not God and I don't know. Maybe there is, and when I'm dead, maybe I'll understand, or maybe not. Maybe when I die and see the big picture I will be angry with God and think he could have done a better job, but I really hope not!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Strangely enough I thought of this thread after watching the "Firefly" episode of Fringe. Walter brought Peter from the other universe, and due to the event there were no fireflies out.(They died or something) A little girl had gone out to catch a firefly but she could not find any, so her father went out to look for her. The truck he was driving went out of control and killed a young man. (Who happened to be the son of Christopher Lloyd's character)
The Observer knew that this would happen but made no attempt to stop it. The Observer knew what should have happened, but due to Walter's decision the future that should have been was changed.
I think God does the same. He can see how things should or can happen, but our decisions can change what actually takes place.
Or there are an infinite number of Parallel Universes, which is possible too. Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: But the point of asking questions is to get answers I didn't expect.
Why don't you ask next if Nazis are bad, swbarnes, and should be scorned? If kicking puppies is awful?
Those are points on which I feel I already know the opinions of the board.
quote:Though of course you're exaggerating quite a bit, since how much of medical science was 'proven' a thousand years ago?
Very little.
(See, answering questions, even rhetorical ones isn't hard!)
quote:The point of asking Scott the question you asked him was not to get an answer you didn't expect. You're lying when you say that, and it's pretty obvious to anyone who read it, I feel very comfortable in saying. The point in asking that question, in that way, was an attempt at a zinger, to paint him into a corner, to get your, "A ha! moment." Everyone's done `em, and I've certainly done more than my fair share, and it will take a lot of persuasion for you to convince me you were sincerely seeking out an unexpected answer.
I don't understand why you are associating answering a simple question as "painting oneself into a corner", as something terrible that people shouldn't be asked to do. When Ron claims that "Each primary species was created with a library of alternate characteristics", and I ask him to show us that library in the genome of an organism, no one accuses me of wrongfully trying to paint Ron in a corner. If Ron asks me to post an example of a mutation which causes resistance, I'd do it, and not worry about some "Ah-ha" moment. And if he did manage to prove some claim of mine wrong, I would stop and relook at my evidence and my reasoning, and be glad that I didn't go on another day being wrong. And I would realize that the only reason I was able to find and correct my error was because I was willing to "paint myself into a corner".
quote:But even if it wasn't obvious, I have your own post to prove what your motive was: "You didn't do that, exactly as I knew you would not."
I do lots of experiments where I'm 95% of the outcome before I do them. It doesn't make my carrying them out dishonest. If I'm wrong, I need to know, and the only way to discover that is to run the experiment.
quote:So let's just dispense with that bit of BS, shall we? Your motive wasn't truth-seeking seeking or perspective-learning, it was winning. That's fine, but since you're so blatant about it you may as well cop to it.
No, it is perspective learning. I would have figured that every theist would be quick to say "Kara would die no matter who prayed over her, prayer simply can't regrow beta cells". I did not think that multiple theists, all of whom know that the Neumanns' own prayers were ineffective, would insist that prayer might have saved her life.
quote:this is why it's a deceptive question: because you imply by asking the question that Scott, or anyone else you ask the question, is the sort of fellow who believes that prayer should be relied upon exclusively. It smacks of a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
I don't see how that compares to "What would happen if you did X"? Yours does contain the implicit assumption that beating was started, becuase the word "stop" demands it, but my question doesn't have any wording like that. There are a million things that I would never do, but that doesn't prevent me from at least guessing what outcomes might happen, and how likely they all are.
I obviously would never sit back and pray for a deathly ill child to get better either, but I have no problem concluding that if I did try praying for Kara to get better, she still would have died of diabetes.
And anyway, the answer to yours is still simple: "Never, because it is impossible to stop what one has never started". One word, one short sentence is all it takes to deconvolute the tangled question. And I don't consider myself painted into any corner by answering it. My answer was accurate, and contains enough context that others will derive an accurate understanding from it.
quote:Here's why it's a trick: why are you asking Scott, or anyone else around here for that matter, if they rely on prayer alone to accomplish something such as healing?
I understand that some people on this board would rather answer that question that the one I asked, but that's why I asked the one I asked.
quote:"What would happen..." "What would happen..." "What would happen..." Well, I can answer your question for my own part at least. In this case I think it's most likely she would have died. Now before you start on another colorful rant, please remember that I'm being much more careful in my use of words like 'most likely' than you are with your use of words like 'many'.
See, that wasn't challenging was it? Do you feel that you are painted into a corner, by giving a simple answer to a simple question?
"Most likely" to me suggests a probably of death somewhere between 50% and 70%, where other terms like "almost certainly" would suggest more like 95-99%. Does a 30-50% chance of being healed by prayer alone accurately describe your claim?
But the very least, your post suggests that you think that she might have regrown her beta cells and lived with no medical intervention, correct?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Swbarnes, in my opinion, for prayer to have medically helped Kara, it would have needed to start generations ago. Perhaps prayer for insight into the causes of diabetes, prayer for the dedication of scientist and doctors, prayer for the understanding of how prayer works so that her parents weren't so misguided, prayer for a world that is more devoted to helping sick children and preventing disease.
You, and Kara's parents, have a view of prayer that is far too narrow.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Perhaps prayer for insight into the causes of diabetes, prayer for the dedication of scientist and doctors, prayer for the understanding of how prayer works so that her parents weren't so misguided, prayer for a world that is more devoted to helping sick children and preventing disease."
None of which will actually DO anything. ACTIONS to promote these goals would.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Prayer should lead to action. Better action.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sure, if the quality of the person (prior to praying) is such that introspection will help him take better action in the future, then introspection will help him to take better actions in the future. But other than that, there's no reason prayer should lead to better action.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, swbarnes, you just can't do it, can you? Have an honest conversation, that is. No, I don't mean just a technically honest conversation. I doubt there isn't a person here who's aware you're being quite technically honest-though sprinkled with a few dishonesties here and there (yes, you're quite interested in learning about the perspectives of theists, that just rings through clearly, heh).
Given that and how tedious it is to speak to you, I'll just answer your last question: yes. It's possible-and not necessarily because of any prayer, either. Sometimes people just get better for unknown reasons-perhaps those reasons would be known someday with better tools to observe, but not now.
Now please, in your pursuit of knowledge, continue attempting to learn about my perspective. Heh.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Swbarnes, in my opinion, for prayer to have medically helped Kara, it would have needed to start generations ago.[/]quote]
Is this your roundabout way of saying that you believe that had you prayed for her to be healed as she lay dying, she still would have died?
[quote]Perhaps prayer for insight into the causes of diabetes, prayer for the dedication of scientist and doctors
Prayer for insight? Has prayer ever turned up a novel drug target? Do Christians find more drug targets than atheists? Are Catholic universities finding more drug targets than Merck?
quote:prayer for the understanding of how prayer works so that her parents weren't so misguided
Of course. You understand how prayer works, and they don't. They are ignorant, but you know better. They choose to believe, just like you did, but they should choose something else.
The Neumanns surely have received exactly as much confirmation of the accuracy of their beliefs through prayer as every theist here has. How can you expect them to turn away from what they believe God has confirmed in them? Would you?
quote:prayer for a world that is more devoted to helping sick children and preventing disease.
How will praying achieve this?
People have been praying for children to recover from illness for thousands of years, and for thousands of years, they died. Even people who prayed the way you think they should (the ones who will accept help from motorboats and helicopters) still watched their children die because science hadn't learned enough to save them. How many more millennia must pass before you can conclude that prayer isn't saving lives?
The Neumanns sincerely believed they were helping their sick child. More devotion would not have changed Kara's fate.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
I don't think any reasonable person believes that prayer is meant to be a reliable process that mechanically produces measurable results, and that "more devotion in" always == "more miracles out". (People do believe this, but I don't consider them to be reasonable.)
Prayer is something that religious people do because they feel they have a relationship with God, and in times of need, how could they NOT ask for His help? Those with a measure of realism and humility accept that under normal conditions, it takes a lot more than prayer to solve a serious problem. But prayer can help individuals find the answers they need, even if the question they end up getting an answer to is along the lines of, "How do I deal with this unabated tragedy?"
People who refuse treatment in favor of prayer alone are wrong, in both my opinion and yours. We can definitely agree about that, right? At the same time, I believe in God, so I think prayer still has value, despite it not-doing things that I never expected it to do.
Do you believe that people should only do things that are guaranteed to have a measurable impact on the problem they wish to solve? Or is it okay if, alongside other strategies, people also try things that are unlikely to have an impact, but which express their hope and commitment, and which help them to work through the stresses with a trusted friend who in some very rare cases might actually produce a solution?
When I'm stressed out by unsolvable problems at work, I often discuss my problems with my immediate superior. In most cases, I come into the conversation with no expectation that I'll walk out with the problem resolved. But the conversation itself defrays tension and helps to move me in the right direction, and every now and then, my superior has an idea for something he can do to offer a small amount of relief. Talking to him doesn't make my problems magically go away, and I wouldn't want them to — the problems are my job, not his, and I want to demonstrate that I can handle them myself. But I'm not going to STOP talking to him because that's "all" I get out of the exercise.
[ February 16, 2011, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Card ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But prayer can help individuals find the answers they need, even if the question they end up getting an answer to is along the lines of, "How do I deal with this unabated tragedy?"
Are Christians noted for more rarely committing suicide than those who do not pray? Do they deal better with tragedy? Do they have less depression, make fewer bad decisions, recover from bad events faster? If not, what exactly does it mean to "deal with tragedy"?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
In all honesty, KoM, there is something comforting in prayer. It can make people feel better, or at least more at ease. I've seen it happen, and I've felt it happen myself when I was religious.
Do I think it's something magical? No. Do I believe it's actually even talking to a god? No. And do I have any statistics? Not on me.
But the action can have an effect. Focusing your thoughts on what you want, or hope will happen, etc, is not a useless endeavor. Asking, even in your mind, for help from a higher authority has a mental effect which is real. I've felt it.
But just like positive thinking is helpful in many specific situations even though The Secret's law of attraction is bogus, the actions involved in prayer can be helpful, even if the act isn't communication with anyone but the self.
Seriously, challenging this particular thing isn't the most helpful part.
Of course swbarnes is right about it having no demonstrated effect on the greater world. But it has an effect on the person, mentally anyway, and that kind of focus can be good. Certainly when it causes someone to go and take actions.
(Don't imagine I think sitting and praying instead of doing anything is useful. But I am not talking about people who'd pray for their child and put it in God's hands instead of going to a doctor. I'm talking about the normal people I meet in everyday life.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:But prayer can help individuals find the answers they need, even if the question they end up getting an answer to is along the lines of, "How do I deal with this unabated tragedy?"
Are Christians noted for more rarely committing suicide than those who do not pray? Do they deal better with tragedy? Do they have less depression, make fewer bad decisions, recover from bad events faster? If not, what exactly does it mean to "deal with tragedy"?
You know, those are answerable questions. In this case, the research says yes. Members of religious groups self-report as happier, are less likely to commit suicide, and are less likely to suffer from depression than people unaffiliated with a religion, and these differences are significant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Edit: This was in response to 0mega, not Squicky.
How does this differ from taking two Valium, or for that matter from resolving to deal with the problem and get on with your life? The question is not whether humans are capable of dealing with tragic events; of course we are. When people say "I don't know how I'd deal with X", they are ignoring the fact that ultimately they have exactly two options: Deal, or commit suicide.
The question is, does prayer actually help, compared to other methods of processing grief/anger/whatever? And further, if it's just a technique for such processing, then it should be presented as such and evaluated as such, without the nonsense about gods. In a similar vein, if acupuncture genuinely helps, fine, do a proper study of its effects; don't waffle on about the lines of chi spiralling around the chakras, or whatever. But the theists here want to have it both ways: They want prayer to be just a method of dealing with bad stuff, and evidence for the existence of their god. Well, either you have evidence of an outside effect, or you've just found a meditation technique; make up your minds which it is, and argue from there.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
However, it only really seems to work in poor countries where religiosity is more common in general. In richer countries where it is less common, the relationship was reversed where the difference was more than 2%)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mucus, A fair bit of the scientific research I'm aware of focused on America, specifically and showed significant differences.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But the theists here want to have it both ways: They want prayer to be just a method of dealing with bad stuff, and evidence for the existence of their god.
I don't think many theists care whether prayer is evidence for the existence of God.
Actually, I don't think many theists are all that concerned about whether or not there's evidence for the existence of God, if by evidence you mean hard proof. That sort of misses the point of religion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
MrSquicky: Thats not really contradictory when you consider that the religiosity of the US is somewhat of an outlier among richer countries.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
You must not have read much of the "Jewish thing" thread Tresopax .
And a fairly large number of people here have cited prayer and its results as evidence considered for why they believe, even if they don't submit it as solid evidence for others.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: You must not have read much of the "Jewish thing" thread Tresopax .
That assumes the theists participating in that thread are typical of the general theist population.
I think that's clearly "no".
Speaking for myself, I don't care whether y'all believe there is hard proof or not.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't think many theists care whether prayer is evidence for the existence of God.
It's the primary means by which Mormons are instructed to verify the truth of their church and, by extension, the existence of God.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think adding "if by evidence you mean hard proof" just confuses the sentiment. KoM clearly didn't mean evidence as "hard proof", he meant "measurable in an objective way", which is hardly the same thing.
Because of this, I can't seem to make a satisfactory reply to your post rivka.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* Call it what you like. I have evidence that satisfies me; I care not one whit whether it satisfies you, KoM, Tom, etc.
MattP, to themselves. Not to others. No?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I don't think many theists care whether prayer is evidence for the existence of God.
It's the primary means by which Mormons are instructed to verify the truth of their church and, by extension, the existence of God.
To themselves. This is meant to be individual, subjective evidence. Not verifiable laboratory evidence.
EDIT: Missed Rivka's post What she said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hiya, Geoff. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I don't think many theists care whether prayer is evidence for the existence of God.
It's the primary means by which Mormons are instructed to verify the truth of their church and, by extension, the existence of God.
Not exactly. The entire process is usually shrunk down to the phrase, "Search, Ponder, and Pray."
You can't just walk around praying for verification of things. One must first study them, and consider for themselves what their own opinions are on the matter, and then present those opinions in prayer.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
BB, I'm talking about *the* test - Moroni's challenge. It's a pretty straightforward "ask and it will be answered" thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: BB, I'm talking about *the* test - Moroni's challenge. It's a pretty straightforward "ask and it will be answered" thing.
Yes, and you will note Moroni's challenge does not come until virtually the end of the entire book. The reason the BOM is pushed vigorously as a good thing to pray about is because a prophet of God said it's worth praying about, and if it is true, then it stands to reason many other important principles found in Mormonism and indeed Christianity itself are then also true.
When I was young I read the entire Book of Mormon, and prayed about it right then and there; I got no answer. I did it again when I was much older, and again I got no answer. I did ask God for guidance as to what was amiss or if perhaps the book was not true, and I felt inspired with the instructions, to stop trying to force an answer, to think about things for myself. After doing so, I concluded that I felt the evidence pointed towards the book being true, and the confirmation I was seeking came then.
If I had been reading the Book of Mormon and come across some undeniable evidence that the Book was not real, or if the Book taught principles that I felt were incorrect, I wouldn't have bothered praying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When I was young I read the entire Book of Mormon, and prayed about it right then and there; I got no answer. I did it again when I was much older, and again I got no answer. I did ask God for guidance as to what was amiss or if perhaps the book was not true, and I felt inspired with the instructions, to stop trying to force an answer, to think about things for myself. After doing so, I concluded that I felt the evidence pointed towards the book being true, and the confirmation I was seeking came then.
Um.... *shuffles feet*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think adding "if by evidence you mean hard proof" just confuses the sentiment. KoM clearly didn't mean evidence as "hard proof", he meant "measurable in an objective way", which is hardly the same thing.
Well yes, that is probably a more accurate way to word it. I don't think most theists are all that concerned with having proof that's measurable in an objective way. They do care about the question of why we should believe in God, but I don't think many are expecting the answer to that question to be something objectively measurable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When I was young I read the entire Book of Mormon, and prayed about it right then and there; I got no answer. I did it again when I was much older, and again I got no answer. I did ask God for guidance as to what was amiss or if perhaps the book was not true, and I felt inspired with the instructions, to stop trying to force an answer, to think about things for myself. After doing so, I concluded that I felt the evidence pointed towards the book being true, and the confirmation I was seeking came then.
Um.... *shuffles feet*
Are we dancing? I love the shuffle!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When I was young I read the entire Book of Mormon, and prayed about it right then and there; I got no answer. I did it again when I was much older, and again I got no answer. I did ask God for guidance as to what was amiss or if perhaps the book was not true, and I felt inspired with the instructions, to stop trying to force an answer, to think about things for myself. After doing so, I concluded that I felt the evidence pointed towards the book being true, and the confirmation I was seeking came then.
o__o
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You: Is the BoM "true?" God: <no answer> You: Is the BoM "true?" God: <no answer> You: What's wrong? Why don't you answer me? God: Think about things for yourself. You: Okay, I'm convinced by other evidence of some sort. The BoM is clearly true. God: Yeah, it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: My point was I was not really pondering or considering the matter. I just read the text for what it was, and prayed.
Look it was a mistake to even go into my own personal experience on the matter. I was only trying to point out for Mormons, it's not a matter of, "Oh hey I wonder if the BOM is true, I'll just pray real hard!" The fact is when I was praying really hard it didn't work for me.
I'd rather not discuss my experience anymore if that's OK with you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I didn't really expect you to be comfortable with any comments, which is why I "shuffled;" I interpreted the "are we dancing" as an invitation to comment, though.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I was only trying to point out for Mormons, it's not a matter of, "Oh hey I wonder if the BOM is true, I'll just pray real hard!"
The church really needs to update their missionary training then because I've never spoken to a missionary that hasn't basically said "just pray about it!". (And I've spoken to a *lot* of missionaries - curse of being a non-member that's married to a Mormon.)
[ February 17, 2011, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: BB, I'm talking about *the* test - Moroni's challenge. It's a pretty straightforward "ask and it will be answered" thing.
Hmm. That's not how it was taught to me. Here's the verse:
quote:3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
There are qualifiers, not the least of which is asking the question with a sincere heart and real intent. Also, faith in Christ, recognition of the mercies of God, and some sort of meditation/pondering agenda.
I'm reminded of the problem Oliver Cowdery had when he tried to translate the Book of Mormon: he'd asked God for the ability to translate but wasn't capable of making sense of the writing on the plates. God's response was to tell him that the gifts he was looking for aren't free for the asking; you have to put in the work of study.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The church really needs to update their missionary training then because I've never spoken to a missionary that hasn't basically said "just pray about it!". (And I've spoken to a *lot* of missionaries - curse of being a non-member that's married to a Mormon.)
I'd settle for missionaries that didn't drop by unannounced at 3p on a Saturday and stay for two hours without having any sort of message or use to their visit.
My priorities may be a bit different from yours...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Look it was a mistake to even go into my own personal experience on the matter. I was only trying to point out for Mormons, it's not a matter of, "Oh hey I wonder if the BOM is true, I'll just pray real hard!" The fact is when I was praying really hard it didn't work for me.
I think your experience makes a helpful point about prayer even to us non-Mormons.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The church really needs to update their missionary training then because I've never spoken to a missionary that hasn't basically said "just pray about it!". (And I've spoken to a *lot* of missionaries - curse of being a non-member that's married to a Mormon.)
I'd settle for missionaries that didn't drop by unannounced at 3p on a Saturday and stay for two hours without having any sort of message or use to their visit.
My priorities may be a bit different from yours...
They are quite similar to mine. I can sympathize with missionaries wanting a friendly face to talk to after a rough day or week, but man I have no patience for that sort of time wasting.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Look it was a mistake to even go into my own personal experience on the matter. I was only trying to point out for Mormons, it's not a matter of, "Oh hey I wonder if the BOM is true, I'll just pray real hard!" The fact is when I was praying really hard it didn't work for me.
I think your experience makes a helpful point about prayer even to us non-Mormons.
It's a good lesson about prayer and faith.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The church really needs to update their missionary training then because I've never spoken to a missionary that hasn't basically said "just pray about it!". (And I've spoken to a *lot* of missionaries - curse of being a non-member that's married to a Mormon.)
I'd settle for missionaries that didn't drop by unannounced at 3p on a Saturday and stay for two hours without having any sort of message or use to their visit.
My priorities may be a bit different from yours...
They are quite similar to mine. I can sympathize with missionaries wanting a friendly face to talk to after a rough day or week, but man I have no patience for that sort of time wasting.
In my mission we called it "bucketing." It was essentially like treading water when you were tired of swimming.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
We used to have a few missionaries that would drop by my parent's house every Sunday when we would have a family dinner. For some reason their Sunday dinner appointments would always get cancelled. My mother always made extra just in case they dropped by, but they started taking advantage of it. After a while they would come over at 5 PM on Sunday and stay until 8 PM or later playing LDS based card games with my family. My dad finally told them that they couldn't come over any more on Sunday because they should be doing missionary work, not playing games.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My whole mission, we never dropped by any member's house without an appointment. I can't think of why - I don't remember instructions not to. It simply didn't occur to us to. Have an appointment, have a purpose, never stay longer than an hour, excepting dinner apointments where you can't always control the time, but try.
I only wish our missionaries would ask for rides/splits more than the night before. I'd love to go, but I am always, always busy when asked at the last second. I need at least 72 hours notice. But they asked once for the next morning and I was busy, and I haven't heard from them again. I love you, Sisters! Call me!*
*72 hours in advance
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Even though it passed the state senate, it didn't even get voted on in the house.
The blame is on the minority churches in heavy democrat areas mobilizing and inundating thier representatives with complaints about the law.
And they say it bears no resemblance to the civil rights movement in the south....
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
]![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)