posted
Your post was inappropriate as a follow-up to mine, in that it did not follow the thread I was speaking of and expressed a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I find this unfortunate, because it stifles conversation and I regret it occurred because I would like to have a converstaion with kmboots or other people who do seem to understand what I'm saying without another Squicky-goes-meta conversation occurring.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think you may find, although goodness know I could be wrong, that I understood boots better here than you did.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will happy to rejoin when the conversation takes another turn. I find the current focus and your patronizing distasteful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry I am not expressing myself very well. MrSqicky is getting my point though.
I am not talking here about people who rebel against religion because they are trying to get back at their parents for making them go or who want to reject their parents' values or even people who stay away from religion just to prove their independence.
I'm sure there are those people and, I agree, they should grow up and make their own choices.
What I am talking about are the many people that I know who, despite the fact that they have healthy relationships with their parents, are of the opinion that religion is repressive, wrong-headed, restricting, discouraging of free thought and otherwise harmful. It isn't that they really deep down want it, but refuse to admit. They don't want it because they have experienced religion's bad effects.
Many of my friends are Irish. When many of them were growing up in Ireland, the Catholic Church was very powerful and pretty repressive. They didn't have much choice about religion; it permeated the culture. Most of them are astonished that I choose to be Catholic. They see it as something one does because there isn't a choice rather than something worthwhile. Very few of them attend mass.
I think that, for some people, being forced to follow someone else's pattern for a relationship with God contributes to that bad opinion of religion. Religion, for me is both communal and deeply personal. It couldn't, for me, be dictated.
For some it can. I also know a lot of people who grow up in a certain tradition without ever thinking about or knowing "why" certain things are the way they are. They are not particularly bothered by this. And that is fine. I have seen many of them have their faith deepened, though, by going through catechism with people who are finding their own path.
I know this rambles, but I hope it helps.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not talking here about people who rebel against religion because they are trying to get back at their parents for making them go or who want to reject their parents' values or even people who stay away from religion just to prove their independence.
I'm sure there are those people and, I agree, they should grow up and make their own choices.
kmboots, I was talking about those people, of whom I know or have known several. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have seen many of them have their faith deepened, though, by going through catechism with people who are finding their own path.
So have I. The most fantastic part of my mission was when I was in Ann Arbor. We were teaching mostly Asians who were there for graduate school with their families, and most of them came from an atheistic background. It was an amazing and wonderful experience teaching them the very basics - about the existence of God, how to pray, and the importance of the Savior. I certainly came to understand it better than I ever had before and a great deal of my testimony was born then.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah...so you are not saying that the people I am talking about should grow up, you are talking about a different "set" of people altogether. I read you as disagreeing with my point about the counter productive nature of forcing religion on children. That was where I was mistaken.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Where does anyone specifically criticize muslims, jews, or other religions that are cultural based, other than christian, in this thread? No where. The thread has mostly focused on christians raising their kids in their religion ... It's not a choice in muslim families, it's not a choice in jewish families, it's not a choice in christian families either.
A) RunningBear (And MrSquicky I see) are criticizing *religion* in general, which happens to include Judaism and Islam. Why would he need to specifically enumerate every one of the 4200 or so types of religion when he is talking in general? When you say something like "I like steak" do you always enumerate every single steakhouse and friend or relative that has ever cooked you a steak?
B) You're generalising from this thread to *everywhere* which is a huge logical hole. There are plenty of examples of people criticizing Muslims in specific in how they raise their kids. Extreme examples in that recent suicide bomber thread on Hatrack and there are moderate examples on the Richard Dawkins page (linked on the very first post of this very thread!) especially around 9/11 that focus specifically on Muslims and how they raise their children.
C) How could you possibly claim that it is not a choice. Many people in this very thread *are* Christian and they have said that they themselves were given a choice or would give a choice. Same with Judaism.
Its especially odd that you would claim that there is no choice on a forum that was founded by OSC, a science fiction writer. One of the best science fiction writers was Isaac Asimov, who was raised by Orthodox Jewish parents who *did not* force their beliefs on him.
quote: Isaac Asimov was a Humanist and a rationalist.[7] He did not oppose religious conviction in others, but he frequently railed against superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs which tried to pass themselves off as genuine science. During his childhood, his father and mother observed Orthodox Jewish traditions, though not as stringently as they had in Petrovichi, and they did not force these beliefs upon Asimov. Thus he grew up without strong religious influences, coming to believe that the Bible represented Hebrew mythology in the same way that the Iliad recorded Greek mythology. ... In his last autobiographical book, Asimov wrote, "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul."
posted
I think it depends on what forcing religion on children means. Much of religion involves the family - do you consider, say, having familly prayer, going to church together, making family trips to various signifigant sites (Isreal for Jews, Mecca for Muslims, Nauvoo and Palmyra and SLC for Mormons) and resolving issues within the context of the religion to be forcing? I don't consider any of that to be a bad idea and I actually think that (except for maybe the vacations part) they are all things that if omitted the parent would be negligent.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:kmboots, I was talking about those people, of whom I know or have known several.
I think you may be doing at least some of these people a disservice in assuming that they don't have more compicated reasons for not chosing religion (or a particular religion).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think whether those things are "forcing" is largely dependent on how the kid feels about it and how it is presented.
I think that when a child is old enough to opt out of family activities (can stay at home by himself or at a friends house etc. while his parents are at church for example) he should be allowed to do that. I think he should be respectful while the family prays, but not made to participate. (How can someone be forced to pray without getting the wrong idea of prayer?)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, I was thinking. What do you consider to be forcing religion on children? How do you distinguish between forcing religion on children and teaching the religion?
In other words, where's the dividing line?
I think there isn't any dividing line in the beginning, because the difference between forcing and teaching is only apparent in how the parents handles the hard questions and their kid's possible dissatisfaction. In other words, I don't think anything is forcing until a parent refuses to take questions seriously or disrespects their children when they do start to explore the religion on their own.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say, for example, tying Christmas presents or other material rewards would be considered forcing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think we have the same idea, although I think it's possible that I think that kind of autonomy should be given later. Staying home from church if they want - about 16. Do not have to participate in family prayer - about 12, although they should still have to be there and be respectful of everyone else.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I would place those ages much younger. Probably half those ages. Again, coming to the "age of reason" example. If, for example, you are old enough to confirm your baptismal vows, you should be considered old enough to decide not to confirm them. If you are old enough to understand and want communion, you are old enough to decide you don't want it.
I think the woman in the video was forcing. And I think it is likely (assuming it is geniune) to have a result that is opposite of what she seems to want.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the woman in the video is terrible. I couldn't even stand to watch it because I hate seeing somebody doing something badly, and I think she was parenting horribly. It was like watching a particularly awful American Idol tryout - I shut it off in sheer embarrassment for her.
I think the age is something parents figure out on a case-by-case basis. I remember trying innumerable times to skip out on family prayer, and it was usually because I was comfy, reading, and annoyed with my brothers. None of that was a religious disinclination, and I'm glad my parents did not accept my reluctance as a good excuse. I'm glad that parents have the leeway to decide when to enforce and when to not, so the ages are really a guideline and it depends on the kid.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that parents have to do some discernment when it comes to what is religious disinclination and what is just laziness. I do think, though, that being too rigid can sometimes turn laziness into disinclination by making religion into a chore.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't that count for everything, though? I mean, school certainly seemed like a chore some (most) days. Maybe if it is ONLY represented as a joyless chore, but then, that's not very good parenting either. Maybe instead of making it solely up the kid (especially when they are still quite young) just making sure there are as many good experiences as obligatory ones.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, the hajj is not made as a family trip.
Also, "forcing" religion (not my chosen words, and in my opinion an insufficient description) is not usually an active process but a passive one.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the hajj is. That's the trip to Mecca, right?
What do you consider to be forcing religion?
I do NOT consider any of the following to be forcing: 1) believing in the religion fervently 2) planning family involvement in the religion 3) involving the religion in the family discourse 4) acting as if the religion is true 5) hoping that all of the children will be faithful members of the religion all their lives 6) being dissapointed if a child does not follow the religion and expressing that dissapointment
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely had to get confirmed, at about age 12 or 13. I didn't want to and my mom made me. I didn't, and still don't, think that was very productive, as all it did was make me resentful of the process and unreceptive to anything presented to me. If she had waited and not pushed it, I may have decided to get confirmed on my own. At the time I was on the fence about the whole religion thing and could have come down either way.
That, of course, is not the only reason I'm not religious now. There are much better, more thought out, reasons, but at the time insisting on my getting confirmed was a push away from the church.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never accused anyone of forcing anything, and I refuse to debate using that word. It is insufficient and a defensive term that does not describe what happens. A better term would be influencing, but that is putting the usage lightly.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that is somewhat true, but not entirely. I think that students for whom school is a chore are likely to get less out of it. They are still somewhat likely to get enough out of it to function in society which they wouldn't very well if they were never taught to read or do math.
Religion is both more personal and less essential to being able to function in society. This does not mean less important.
edit: this is in response to kat's question about school. I'm slow.
posted
Going back to comments of the first page, I find it quite interesting that in some (most?) places you actually have to "come out" as an atheist- something that is quite different from my experience.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1) Constantly and openly wonder about how in the world supposedly intelligent people can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and other, related, non-existent, "all powerful" entities
2) Make plans to visit all known atheist sites near our vacation points, and avoid going to all churches (unless they're really nice, architecturally...)
3) Constantly talk about the total non-existence of God or any other deity
4) Act morally, but otherwise live our lives with the understanding that there is no uber-father waiting in the sky for us.
5) hoping that all of our children will grow up to realize that there's enough to worry about in the world, and enough wonder in the world, without having to invoke some all-powerful being to either keep them in line or lavish praise on for such an otherwise fascinating world.
6) being disappointed if a child actually expresses a religious belief, and expressing that disappointment vocally
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I absolutely had to get confirmed, at about age 12 or 13. I didn't want to and my mom made me. I didn't, and still don't, think that was very productive, as all it did was make me resentful of the process and unreceptive to anything presented to me. If she had waited and not pushed it, I may have decided to get confirmed on my own. At the time I was on the fence about the whole religion thing and could have come down either way.
That, of course, is not the only reason I'm not religious now. There are much better, more thought out, reasons, but at the time insisting on my getting confirmed was a push away from the church.
I had a similar experience regarding Seminary. At around 13 I told my parents I didn't really have any faith in their specific church. They insisted I still go to Church, participate in Mutual, and do all the regular family stuff. I didn't find the requirement to go to Church and family stuff to really be forcing, at that point it seemed more like being part of the family. It really bothered me that I had to go to Mutual, but I went. Then I turned 14 and was required to go to Seminary. I was told I had no choice in such things. Many, many, many scenes like the one in the video ensued. It became a power struggle and eventually I refused to do any of it. I was grounded for months and had my dad wake up at the time Seminary started with him loudly singing church songs at me, just to make sure I didn't get the benefit of sleeping in from missing Seminary. All of that just made me feel more sure of myself. Eventually my parents relented and just let me be.
Today I consider myself agnostic/atheist for reasons completely unrelated to parents or rebellion. But I strongly suspect that if my parents had not been so forceful and made everything in to a power struggle, my life would have taken a very different path. I would not have had the experiences that have led me to my current beliefs. I likely would have had more positive experiences in regards to religion. I even think it's likely I would have "returned to the flock" at some point. This is my past, it's not something that angers me anymore, but I think it's important to recognize how events change the paths of our lives.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along.
And there we disagree. I think parents have an obligation to equip their children to be able to make deep choices as adults.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along.
I do not know how many times I need to explain this: I have never said it is wrong. I have said that it exists and that it is natural. Nothing more.
By the way:
quote:I don't know what the hajj is. That's the trip to Mecca, right?
Earlier you (katharina) asked a question to the effect of what if a religion required the person to evaluate possibilities of other religions being "true" and coming to their conclusions themselves. Regardless of the religion you were asking about, can you say that you personally evaluated other religions and came to your own conclusion? The hajj is a pretty significant part of Islam, given great meaning though not absolutely necessary. I would find it difficult to believe that someone has given full consideration of Islam without being absolutely sure of what the hajj means.
This displays what I have been saying from the beginning. Someone can hear of a belief different or even opposite to their own. That person can consider it, think on it, possibly even meditate or pray on it. That still does not mean they have viewed it from the purview of the individual who holds that different or opposing belief. They can come to a level of understanding, but that understanding will be coloured in their minds by the process through which they came to that understanding, and it is going to begin from the point of view of their own belief. There may be no less understanding, but the context is going to be different. That difference in context is only the least of the manners in which growing up within a specific religious environment affects how someone views and relates to the world around them. There are extremes, yes, but the average is usually simple cultural or societal based influences that tend to place the predominant religion in the region as the most obvious 'Truth' for most people, and most references in that area tend to begin with that assumption.
That Spock/LDS thread is a perfect example of this phenomenon. To many, mostly the Mormon members, it was obvious and acceptable, without any stretch of the imagination, to assume that the joke in the movie meant one thing, because it was and is a given. To others, it varied between some being able to see it as possible and others being highly incredulous, because it wasn't a given and different contexts offered different possible explanations. You (katharina) even stated yourself that the individual interpretation may very well speak more about that individual than it does the actual joke. This is true in that it is a perfect example of how context for how we relate to the world around us being affected by our individual experience. Everything I have said in this thread has been pointing out that such a thing extends from how we learned to relate and place ourselves in the context of those things around us that we experience from a young age.
I did not make a judgment evaluation because two separate individuals with exactly the same learning experiences as children may still grow up to have opposing beliefs based on how they relate to the subject. There is no equation to place a moral value on such things, with the exception of how avoiding abuse or abusive behavior and treatment. The religion of the parents and the local community plays a large role during this time because a person goes from having zero relational ability to the world around them (our early "selfish" phase where we mostly only relate to our needs / wants) to being able to take part in social settings and communicate with those around us productively. Expecting all of those initial influences to not relate anything in terms of a religious belief borders on a ridiculous thing to expect, and is next to impossible. Because of this, parents, loved ones, and those who are important to the individual as a child play a large role in influencing and shaping how someone views and relates to a given religion idea or belief as an adult. This does not always mean the individual will relate in the same way or that the relation will be in the positive context. As I said before, two people with the same experience can still eventually have opposing outlooks despite the similarities of origin.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be happy to share my own conversion story, but not in a public place. If you would like to know, I am open to an e-mail conversation. For this thread, however, I would prefer not to have it as a topic of conversation and it is DEFINITELY NOT something I am going to put under your scrutiny.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along."
Assume for a moment that we are talking about Muslims, traditional Masai, Yanomamo, traditional Machiguenga, or any of a number of other religions, or Santeria (Voodoo). Does your statement still stand in those cases?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think any parent that does not do everything within their power to prepare their children for a happy existence in the realms that they see as relevant is falling down on at least part of the job.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My confirmation was utterly meaningless, as well. Confirmation class was horrid, no one wanted to be there and the other kids did things like move the hands of the clock forward while the preacher had his eyes closed in prayer and throw dolls from the nursery into the (busy) street outside during the break in the middle. Going to church was a chore, and Sunday School was worse, past the age of 8 or 9, probably. I don't believe I ever asked to be able to stop going before I was confirmed, however. It was understood that this was something that was required of me. I also am sure that my parents didn't understand just how bad the classes were. There was no spiritual learning going on. For me, there was paying enough attention to be able to pass the test at the end on the first try, so I could get out of there. (The test was at the end of the two years of confirmation classes, ostensibly to show that we understood what we were confirming well enough to be confirmed. We then has to write a short speech on an assigned topic that we read in church on confirmation Sunday.)
I don't recall ever being asked if I believed in what I was supposedly confirming, except for as part of the ceremony itself. Belief never seemed to be the point. I don't believe there was anyone in my confirmation class who was there for any reason other than our parents required it. It certainly was not enjoyable in any way imaginable. If I had been asked outside of the ceremony if I was ready to be confirmed, I would have said no.
Some time after I was confirmed, I believe the autumn when I had just turned 18, I had an. . . intense discussion with my mother about if I was going to continue going to church every week my parents went or not. (Which was not every week.) I did not, although I still did a good portion of the time. I have gone back to and drifted away from the church several times since then. I would consider myself a very "weak" Christian, although I still believe more often than not. My experiences in being, let's say "expected" rather than "forced," to attend church when it was not a positive experience for me definitely color how I react to church now. I have had several positive experiences with churches, but I still have triggers from my negative ones that certain things can set off, and like any triggers that are embedded in childhood even when I can recognize them I can't always control them. And any church that sets those triggers off on a regular basis is not a church I am going to feel comfortable at.
I don't think my parents did anything wrong in how they raised me in regards to religion. I'm sure they had no idea how crappy my experience was, I was not a complainer about that sort of thing, and did not think it would do any good. However I made that same decision about some things that, in retrospect, it was pretty darn stupid to think that about, so I could have been wrong. Regardless, if the goal was for me to end up as a regular churchgoer with a strong faith, what they did was not conducive to those ends, either.
I tell this story because I think you, kat, may have had a relatively ideal experience in how you were brought up religiously, based on the way you seem to be approaching the topic. I don't think the things you listed are what people are talking about when they talk about forcing religion on a child. I don't think my experience is, either, to be clear. . . the biggest problem in my experience was the church we were at/other people my age and lack of knowledge on my parents part of what went on when they weren't around. I wasn't telling them, and due to their (much better) experiences, they felt no particular need to ask. But there are people who had some really rotten, long-term experiences with religion as children. To admit that those experiences have an affect on their adult decision making about religion is not lame.
--
I have been typing this post for a long time. I'm trying to be careful, because I want to present an honest picture of my experiences without seeming to be blaming my parents for them, I honestly don't think they are their fault. There have probably been a lot of posts since I started typing, however, so forgive me if this topic has gotten more heated again and this is out of place.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think parents have an obligation to equip their children to be able to make deep choices as adults.
Depending on what you mean by "deep choices," it's entirely possible that the vast majority of parents are themselves unequipped to make such choices, and if so it may not be reasonable to expect them to equip their children to make them.
On the other hand, I know through discussions with her that my mother has never pondered religious or philosophical questions at a level I would describe as "deep." That isn't in any way a slam; she just isn't that sort of person. (My father's death forced her to try, at least a bit, and I saw how uncomfortable it made her to even contemplate asking some questions in particular.) I don't know if my father did, because we never discussed it, but by raising me to be a voracious reader and consumer of knowledge, they certainly equipped me to study and ponder those kinds of questions myself.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps "obligation" is too strong a word. I don't feel that all parents are entirely equipped to pass on their religion well either.
To the extent that parents are able, I would much prefer that they prepare their children to be able to make good choices for themselves than they indoctrinate* their children into a specific faith tradition.
*"indoctrinate" is not meant to be perjorative. "Train" perhaps?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think any parent that does not do everything within their power to prepare their children for a happy existence in the realms that they see as relevant is falling down on at least part of the job."
I am starting to get the feeling that your fanaticism is motivated by a desire for attention more than actual sincerity of belief in the LDS doctrine.
I'd love to hear some evidence to the contrary, from people besides you. This means, I won't listen if you post in disagreement, kat.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, ElJay. It makes sense that others would have very different experiences. My parents were both...my family was always active, but my dad had a period of about ten years when he didn't go to church at all. He didn't go on a mission. He married my mother, who was not a member at the time. My mom joined the church as an adult, and my dad went back to church after their first baby died. They were both faithful (my mother more than my dad, but this is starting to split hairs), but they weren't horrified at opposition. I think my dad thinks that everyone will come around eventually. The general rule was you were expected and required to go to church, seminary, etc. until you were sixteen, and at that point, in my mother's words, if she hadn't "taught you what you need to know by now, then it's too late. Your decision."
quote:To the extent that parents are able, I would much prefer that they prepare their children to be able to make good choices for themselves than they indoctrinate* their children into a specific faith tradition.
kmboots, I think this is less a discussion of methods than of the specific content of the teachings itself - for parents who DO believe that only their religion has all truth and that there are temporal and eternal consequences for not following it, substituting general thinking skills for specific religious teaching instead of in addition to religious teaching would not suffice.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...I would say that there is a difference between thinking that your religion is true and thinking that it it the only religion that is true. None of us has the whole truth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am starting to get the feeling that your fanaticism is motivated by a desire for attention more than actual sincerity of belief in the LDS doctrine.
I saw that, Rakeesh - I can't think of a single good thing coming out of answering, so I didn't. I'm fine if no one else does either - I feel no need to be defended on this. I'm not worried about what he says.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps they would. I think, though, that thinking that mortal, incarnate human beings could understand everything about God - the whole truth - means that God isn't as big as I believe God to be. I understand that we have different ideas about the nature of God, but is God really entirely comprehensible in the LDS tradition?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps they would. I think, though, that thinking that mortal, incarnate human beings could understand everything about God - the whole truth - means that God isn't as big as I believe God to be. I understand that we have different ideas about the nature of God, but is God really entirely comprehensible in the LDS tradition?
Just because a human being cannot understand all things about God, does not mean that a human being cannot understand some things about God. What if one of those things, in their belief system, is that God has told them that their religion is the only true one?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I am not sure that I am ready to get into a discussion of LDS conceptions of God right now - I'd have to both think carefully about how I worded things because this is a subject on which I would hate to be misunderstood. If someone else would like to explain, that's fine with me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if they were right (and I don't think they would be) that might contradict the first part of my statement - that other religions have truth in them, too. It doesn't contradict the part that kat quoted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
