I have a question for all of you out there who consider some sort of holy scripture as a personal guide.
How important is the literal truth of stories within your scripture to spiritual view of the world.
Imagine for a moment that you learned through some certain means (perhaps divine revelation) that nothing in your scriptures was literally true. The book still contained priceless truth and expounded true principles but the stories contained in the book were all fiction, parables, or allagories.
How would this change your spiritual outlook? Are there stories that are equally meaningful to you whether they are literal or symbolic? Are there stories where the literal truth is absolutely essential to your understanding of God? Are there stories where a symbolic view is more meaningful to you than the literal interpretation?
Please, don't simply argue whether or not cetain stories are literally true. That is beside the point. I simply want to know which stories you feel need to be literally true.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's important to my belief that the events of the Four Canonical Gospels and probably the Book of Acts are literally true.
Everything else could be legend.
While I consider all of it Mythic-- stories which convey truth whether or not they are actually true-- I don't think I could consider myself a Christian knowing that the Incarnation (and thereby, central meaning of the whole religion) was false.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Honestly it wouldn't matter to me at all. I know it's the truth, in the sense that the spiritual truths conveyed are real. I also know that I'm not advanced enough yet to really understand the fullness of the truth. That's why we learn line by line and precept by precept. I know that lots that has been revealed to prophets of old is stuff they were told not to write yet for everyone to read. I also know that eternal progression means there's a long way yet for me to go, a lot left for me to learn.
I have great faith that the scriptures contain essential truths for my spirit to learn at this stage in my progress. Whether or not the stories in them are literally true seems beside the point to me. I would not be upset any more than I would if i found out the parables of Christ were not literally true. They work on a different level than that.
Maybe somewhat but not entirely analogous to the same way in which it doesn't really matter about great novels that they aren't literally true, their literal truth is beside the point. They are real, we know that much. What's important is the ideas, feelings, thoughts, everything, be real and completely true to life. Scriptures to me are stories in that sense, and then they're more.
I believe they are literally true but have to be told to us at the level of our understanding at the time. So elements of the story that are beyond our understanding have to be told in a way that what's important about them comes through, without trying to make scriptures into science textbooks or something, which they aren't.
It is not their purpose to explain genetics to us, nor speciation, nor cosmology, geology, paleontology, how the solar system was formed, or whether there's life on Mars. Instead we're told that we are God's children and that God made the world. All that other stuff, the details if you like, are for us to discover for ourselves.
[ June 22, 2005, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's important to my belief that the events of the Four Canonical Gospels and probably the Book of Acts are literally true.
All of them? For example is Jesus only fed 300 people instead of 3000 -- would it make a difference to you. If the temptations in the wilderness are an allegory rather than a literal report of the events would that invalidate them? If the Sermon on the Mount is a complilation of a dozen different sermons given on different occasions would that invalidate it. Which details of the stories must be literal and which can be figurative?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Sorry for being unclear...
I think if some details are off or mistranslated, that wouldn't be a big deal...it sounds silly but your example could be put down to a "typo" and that wouldn't really be a big deal to me. But if there were a consistent misreporting in the Gospels, what reason would there be to trust in the most difficult to believe and simultaneously most important part of the story? If it turns out that the evangelists were lying about the smaller claims, why on earth would I trust them in the unbelieveable assertion that God became a Man and died?
I don't mean that my faith isn't real and present to me... I get a particular spiritual boost from meditation before the sacrament in a chapel... but it *is* entirely possible that Christianity is just another human attempt to allow for the fact that there is *something* out there "bigger" than us... heck, it's even possible the staunch Atheists are right and that the spiritual ecstasy is "all in my head."
So it's not so much a matter of there being particular stories that are important and not (though again, I'd have to say at a minimum, the birth and passion of Jesus would have to be literally true or there would be no Christ for Christians to believe in) but a matter of whether the witnesses we have to the events being reliable or deceitful.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I figure the stories are true from at least the writer's point of view.
Since you did go ahead and bring up a specific story, I'll bring up another. Some people are really shaken that there are 4 versions of the First Vision. And that was just one person telling the same story to different audiences.
And of course the 4 gospels have differing accounts of something as important as the Atonement and crucifixion. And don't Samuel and Kings cover a lot of the same territory? Heck* even the creation is told in two versions.
Anyway, I'm pretty open minded about the use of symbolism in scripture, especially where it comes to numbers. Though I tend to think most scripture has a literal meaning and a figurative, or spiritual interpretation.
But I'd also be concerned about anyone whose "divine" revelation is telling them strange things about the scriptures. Satan uses the same methods as the spirit, and can do a fairly good imitation. Joseph Smith taught that few things are as damaging as a man who thinks he is under the influence of the holy spirit but is under the influence of a false spirit. (I'm working on the assumption that you are LDS, Rabbit. Forgive me if I'm remembering wrong.)
P.S. Okay getting back to the question at the end of your statement, I'll say the 4 events encompassed by the Atonement: The creation/fall (spiritual death) The condescention of God (Jesus is born. The particular means of how this happened are not something that is clearly outlined anyway) The suffering for our sins. Resurrection.
And I'd tack on to this that Nephi was really told by the holy spirit to kill Laban. If that doesn't turn out to be true, I'll be pretty ticked.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So if it’s ok to believe in a story then Jedi can really be a religion. To me the literal truth is very important.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, Jay, "Jedi" is not a religion. We're not saying you should believe any old story. I believe there is truth within stories in scripture, but some of it has been changed or mistranslated over the years. But heck, there's a lot of metaphorical stories that Jesus told, why not have some of the ones before be metaphor? Or even some of the ones about him? That's how religion works.
And that's why I'm LDS.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Stories about Jesus' death and ressurection need to be literally true, along with Joseph Smith's vision and the origin of the Book of Mormon. Everything else could turn out to be figurative and it would okay...maybe, but those need to be literally true or else it's all based on a lie.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Many of Jesus' lessons were in parable form, because what is important is the story core. Most people do not realize it but we as men are locked into just a handful of core stories, once you know them you can choose who you want to be in them. I would be much happier to find out it was all fiction, but too much of it rings all too true.
So no it matters not at all to me if scripture is true or not, as long as it does not make a false claim of truth. That is if it is scincere in the effort to serve the truth rather then some other function.
BC
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*points to Katie* Yeah, what she said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: those need to be literally true or else it's all based on a lie.
Would it be so bad if it were based on a lie? None of the reasons I've ever seen someone here give for believing in a religion -- personal revelation, a sense of purpose, self-satisfaction, community -- have involved an investment in Truth.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But personal revelation depends on Truth.
At least to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Would it be so bad if it were based on a lie? None of the reasons I've ever seen someone here give for believing in a religion -- personal revelation, a sense of purpose, self-satisfaction, community -- have involved an investment in Truth.
It would be bad for me. Before I was as invested in it as I am now (before the whole community thing mattered), my only reasoning for following it was that I wanted to live my life according to something real and true and lasting. If the gospel was true, then it was more real than anything and was worth everything. I believe it is True because of personal revelation, but I follow it because I believe it is True.
This is still the base reason, although other reasons have since been added to it. There are many things of great worth, but the gospel being True makes it of the most worth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What KQ said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But personal revelation depends on Truth."
But that can't be true, because you know for a fact that other people claim personal revelations about other, incompatible religions. At most, personal revelation can only depend on a belief that your revelation is more accurate than someone else's, which is something completely different than Truth; it's a faith in one's own gut feelings.
quote: Before I was as invested in it as I am now (before the whole community thing mattered), my only reasoning for following it was that I wanted to live my life according to something real and true and lasting.
But you started out Mormon, didn't you? And the vast majority of people remain in the faith into which they're born. And I'd wager that almost all of them will say that they want to live their lives according to something real and true and lasting.
It seems to me -- speaking as an outsider, here -- that there are elements of any religion which are real and true and lasting, but which have almost nothing to do with the truth of the religion itself.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I joined the Church because of a revelation of its truth. Sure, there comes a point where you have to believe that your personal revelation is right where others' may be wrong. But that's the whole point of this church, anyway. All the real differences in our church come, we believe, through the Holy Spirit.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"All the real differences in our church come, we believe, through the Holy Spirit."
Which has nothing to do with scripture, then.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But you started out Mormon, didn't you?
Yeah, but staying wasn't inevitable. My mother's family aren't members, and my brother left the church long ago and my dad is fine with it. I was in a field that seemed incompatible with the gospel at the time, going to church but only sacrament meeting, and I was crazy about and seriously dating a non-member. All the things that were pulling me away were very good things, so it wasn't Mormon or Nothing.
I guess everyone wants to live their life according to something good, but if the gospel is true, it's worth everything, even the sacrifice of other Very Good things.
If it turned out to not be true, then it wasn't/isn't worth the sacrifice. I would be Not Happy.
[ August 11, 2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of Truth, and you didn't ask about truth of Scripture in your question about the importance of Truth.
Although I have recieved testimony through the Spirit of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets take two people, kq and dag, for example.
Both believe they have received revelation regarding their church being the true church (and have related such on hatrack, why I chose them).
At least one must be wrong. That is, the belief of at least one must not depend on the truth of that (believed) revelation, but only on their belief in the truth.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I knew it would be a matter of time before someone who believes neither came swashbuckling into the thread.
But the point that Jesus taught many religious principles through works of fiction is a good one.
I really like the story of Jericho. I'll be sad if it really was an earthquake or the soundwaves or something. It speaks to me of the idea that if you do what God asks, his grace will help you with things you couldn't do yourself.
Ditto on manna and the Red Sea. They can turn out to be figurative and I'll just be sad.
The partridges, though... that had to be real.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I guess everyone wants to live their life according to something good, but if the gospel is true, it's worth everything, even the sacrifice of other Very Good things.
If it turned out to not be true, then it wasn't/isn't worth the sacrifice. I would be Not Happy.
Ah. You just described why I have not joined a religion just for kicks.
I don't personally want to waste my life obeying the rules and regulations and compulsions of a religion that isn't based on anything more than sociology and conjecture. If I were going to do that, I have sufficient faith in my own understanding of sociology to come up with my own perfectly good code of ethics.
I suppose the difference boils down to the presence of that "gut feeling." You start from the assumption -- through revelation -- that it is true, and because you believe it wouldn't be worth doing if it weren't True, your belief is reinforced. I have no such starting assumption, and so do not do it until I have a reason.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am a member of my religion because I believe it is factually true. If I thought it were just useful and helpful, but not actually true, I would have left it a long time ago.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lets take two people, kq and dag, for example.
Both believe they have received revelation
I wouldn't call my experience "revelation," for a variety of reasons which aren't important here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We can call it "information".
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ah, but I believe I have directly recieved information from God. That is revelation, and I will not call it "information".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think it changes your overall point, fugu, but the word "revelation" has very different meanings for Mormons and Catholics, and I don't want confusion to exist on this point. "Information" is acceptable, especially given the context of this discussion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:You just described why I have not joined a religion just for kicks.
That's great. And I'd like to say a completely unnecessary from me Thank You.
quote:I don't personally want to waste my life obeying the rules and regulations and compulsions of a religion that isn't based on anything more than sociology and conjecture.
Ditto. Have you read Remains of the Day? That was seriously the book that started my personal spiritual crisis. The butler spends his whole life dedicated to a nice idea that turned out to not be true. I do NOT want to do that.
quote:I suppose the difference boils down to the presence of that "gut feeling." You start from the assumption -- through revelation -- that it is true, and because you believe it wouldn't be worth doing if it weren't True, your belief is reinforced. I have no such starting assumption, and so do not do it until I have a reason.
*nods* Maybe. I did start with that assumption, but I don't agree with the conclusion that I twisted myself into believing it. I did have a choice, and from a certain perspective, both were pretty great options. I picked what I did because...actually, because of a few very strong spiritual experiences, most of which centered around the Book of Mormon. Whenever I thought about what to do, I kept bumping up against personal revelation I got while reading the Book of Mormon.
quote:I have no such starting assumption, and so do not do it until I have a reason.
Does that mean that if you did have such an experience, you would have a reason?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Surely what God gave you in some way constituted information? That the LDS church is the true church is certainly a bit of information.
edit: in fact, you just called it information from God.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Right, fugu, but I separate information from God directly from information about the world obtained or theorised by mankind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does that mean that if you did have such an experience, you would have a reason?
Well, then the alternatives become "I'm deluding myself" or "I'm hearing from God." The people here who speak of revelation do so in a way that suggests that it's self-evidently the second possibility, that God communicates with them in a way they could not mistake for wishful thinking. If God communicated with me in the same way, I'd have pretty much no reason to disbelieve.
-------
KQ, as I understand it, Dag believes he received a vision from something other than mankind.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would say that some of the most valuable parts of scripture, at least the scripture that I accept, is the direct teaching that is not couched in story or parable, and is not metaphorical.
I have long believed that the story of Job is a story designed to illustrate truth. Whether or not Job really existed is secondary. It's the truths that are set forth that are important.
Still, some accounts in the scriptures are integral to my faith and I wouldn't accept them as mere metaphor. Principally the account of Christ in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'll find that Dagonee holds the information he believes himself to have received in a similar respect
And no offense, but that defense sounds like this argument:
Man: "Women are inferior, therefore women's arguments are weaker, and should be called women-arguments."
Woman: *gives examples of solid arguments by women*
Man: "Ah, we might think those are good arguments, but as has already been shown, women-arguments are inferior, therefore those can't be"
That is, your information being from God and of that special sort depends on it being (in at least a certain sense) correct; if your information is not correct in that sense, then its not of that special sort of information, and instead "human-information".
And this is true of both your experiences, and mutually exclusively so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:KQ, as I understand it, Dag believes he received a vision from something other than mankind.
Ack!. Can anyone find the thread I originally posted this in? I can't find it. I was originally reluctant to post about it for this reason - none of these words ("vision" or "revelation") are really accurate. I don't think I used either, although I might have used "vision." If I did, I think the way I used it was almost unique.
Not that any of you would know that - my inability to articulate was the cause of my original reluctance. I don't want to try to reformulate it again, but I'll try to clarify what I meant if anyone can find the post.
I tried, and I can't find it.
Dagonee P.S., My "Ack!" does not indicate any ill-feeling of any kind to either fugu or Tom. Both their characterizations are certainly understandable, and I take full blame for any misintepretation. That being said, I really don't want to leave those impressions uncorrected.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, I don't understand the source of your discomfort, here. I recognize why, for doctrinal reasons, you're reluctant to believe that you have directly communicated with God, but I recall that you said this "vision" -- for want of a better word -- helped confirm you on your religious path and that you did indeed believe that it was divinely inspired.
Have I misunderstood what you were saying? Did you not believe that this "vision" was of supernatural origin?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
(Using "vision" in quotes for lack of better term now.)
Yes, I believe it was of supernatural origin and divinely inspired. Yes, it helped confirm my religious path.
The discomfort is not related to either of those points.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I understand. It's a difficult discussion for me, too.
Shall we drop it? At least for a while?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And I realize I haven't clarified what the actual source of my discomfort is. Let me ponder some.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
There is also the possibility of something being true, but the relating of it being simplified or otherwise only partially understood.
For example - since Einstein, we know that Newton's physics aren't "true" in that they don't accurately explain what is really going on; however, they are still true in a preschool kind of way - they are applicable learning tools and describe a simplification of the way the physical world really works. Is there not the possibility that scripture may work similarly? Perhaps the crossing of the Red Sea is true in a way that is close enough to the simplified telling of it to still be functionally the same, but the underlying reality of it is far more complex than we would have thought.
To me, it's entirely possible for the wall of Jericho to have fallen down due to an earthquake but still be the work of God. Earthquakes are miraculous things; even if the tectonic plates were set in motion thousands of years earlier, that doesn't put it outside of the realm of God's jurisdiction.
I am also OK with evolution being totally compatible with the scriptures. Genesis says that God created the fish of the sea, and then the creeping things of the earth, and then the beasts of the field, and then the fowls of the air, and then man. I don't see how either of those worldviews excludes the other.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would be terribly disappointed if the sun turned out to be a metaphor and not an actual star we were orbiting around. It would devalue for me many of the canonical scientific works on the subject. I would lose a lot of faith in science.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*applauds Annie and afr*
Also, regarding Catholics and Mormons believing they are the one true church.. obviously one must be wrong... but it's not exactly the belief that they are right which is the point.
Rabbit's question was, "when does Literal Truth become important to your belief?" Now, following Annie's example, let's take two competing but unproven scientific theories... say Steady State vs. Big Bang Cosmology (I'm aware that this is largely not an issue anymore) each side *believes* that they are true, but the sides are chosen precisely because the actual, literal truth is the important thing. Both are making their best guesses based on the information availible.
The best reason for not being a fundamentalist is that being a fundamentalist means insisting that God, who can forgive the most egregious crimes, cannot forgive doing the best job you can with the information availible. If Annie and I both die and then both go standing before God and find out we are both wrong, I expect we would both have the humility to have a good laugh about it and that God would be loving enough to pat us on the back and say with a wry smile "Heaven's this way... hope you aren't too disappointed!" and I'm certain both of us would be interested enough in the truth to go with the Reality presented us rather than cling to our belief in "the One True Church."
Fugu and Tom, do you realize that you seem to be calling for the very religious intolerance that you often criticize?
[ June 22, 2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I have nothing to add to this conversation, but just wanted to say that I'm enjoying it immensely.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Oh, and as for the value of personal revelation...
I believe New York is real, but have never seen it. I have seen Katharina in person.
I *know* she is real at a level that I do not know about New York... even though for the purpose of argument, I can give more evidence for the existence of New York than I can for Kat.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nope, I'm not.
I'm discussing the side point of what is necessary for a religious belief, which has nothing to do with religious intolerance; in fact, an understanding that many other peoples' religious beliefs are based on exactly the same sort of experiences despite their different beliefs would seem to be an argument for religious tolerance.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thank you for that, Jim-Me. I would like to add that I am firmly into the "degrees of truth" thing; while I believe I have access to the full truth, there is much light in other paths. My aunt and her husband are very firmly and devoutly Catholic, and yet we are closer in our religious beliefs than most of the rest of my family and I, mainly because most of the rest of my family isn't very religious. At least my aunt lives her religion, and treats others accordingly, and I try to do the same. I find that, and even Tom's stance against joining a religion, much better than hypocrisy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:exactly the same sort of experiences
Here is where we would get into semantics, then. I don't believe it's the same experience.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, I did say "seem".
And I did choose my statement poorly.
What I mean was, you seem to be saying "these two people, by personal revelation, believe their church to be the One True Church. They cannot both be right, therefore personal revelation is not useful in deciding what is truth."
With which I couldn't disagree more. What I do agree with is that it isn't of use in arguing or convincing what is truth. But interms of finding out for yourself what is true, it's invaluable... even if it is vague enough to be taken in different ways or confirming different things.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can't use property X of something to prove it has property X.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, but neither is religion a science. Sometimes you just have to have faith.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You can't use property X of something to prove it has property X.
Huh? I can't use my two arms to prove that I have two arms? I don't understand what you are saying.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nothing wrong with that, either, but while your faith in the truth of your experience (and the truth of your church) is certainly foundational to your overall faith, the truth of that faith is definitely not, in at least your or Dagonee's case, as they are mutually exclusive.
Hence at least one of your faith's is not based on the truth of that faith, but only on a belief in that truth.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
sure you can, I would think that was a tautology
That X is a subset of Y implies that Y contains X, doesn't it?
I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding your point, Fugu... please elaborate?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What is necessary to gain certain types of knowledge? And can different types of knowledge affirm the same basic truths? If they do, are they all equally valid?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The point, though, Fugu, is as with my example, that the actual truth *is* more important than the faith and, should we find our perceived truth to be incorrect, we would correct it, rather than hold to it, knowing it was incorrect.
The truth is the importance, not the fact that we believe it is.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think they are. But I'm not going to try to elaborate on why any more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
mph: nope, you can only use data which supports you having two arms to say you have two arms; what you said is a shorthand for that you have the feeling of two arms, and that you and others see you have two arms, et cetera.
Can I use the existence of the evil space chicken to prove the existence of the evil space chicken? After all, since he exists, he exists.
With arms: Can I use the existence of my arms to prove the existence of my arms? After all, since they exist, they exist.
Neither has any logical weight.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
An experience which confirms the LDS church is the only current true church is not mutually exclusive with one which confirms the Catholic church is? You will have to pardon me for not following.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
neither has any logical weight, but, if you need logic to prove to you that I am real, I am content letting you believe I am not
"Everything that is in the mind was first in the senses" -St. Thomas Aquinas summarized by G. K. Chesterton
Some things are self-evident. Some things are more obvious, even, than that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am reasonably confident in your reality based on my observations of your posts.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:An experience which confirms the LDS church is the only current true church is not mutually exclusive with one which confirms the Catholic church is? You will have to pardon me for not following.
You are pardoned.
Seriously, I'm not going to go into it any more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What I mean was, you seem to be saying "these two people, by personal revelation, believe their church to be the One True Church. They cannot both be right, therefore personal revelation is not useful in deciding what is truth."
Personal revelation is not useful in deciding what is Truth. It is useful in deciding whether or not you're going to believe something is true, but has no effect whatsoever on what the truth actually is.
I have a vivid memory of being seven years old and staying home sick when my mother and my younger brother went to Lincoln Park Zoo. I remember playing some video games and reading Fellowship of the Ring and having some soup while the rain poured down. I remember them coming home and shaking off the rain and telling me about the gorillas.
A few years later, we went to Lincoln Park Zoo. I commented that it was nice to finally get a chance to go, but that I didn't like it as much as Brookfield. My mom started; she remembered quite clearly that I had come with her. Oddly, so did my brother.
To this day, whenever my mother and I discuss something that depends on a personal perception of reality, we use the phrase "it's a Lincoln Park Zoo thing" as a shorthand. Because, even twenty years after the fact, we STILL believe our memories of the event.
Am I right? Did I stay home? I mean, I REMEMBER eating soup. But my mother and my brother, both of whom went, remember my being there with them. Is the majority wrong?
---------
Russell, many people believe that revelations can be sent by demons and/or misunderstood. They rarely believe that their own revelations are subject to this, but frankly the Mormons are more responsible about this than many religions -- perhaps because they're encouraged to share testimony of this sort in public, and consequently have had to face up to misunderstood/misinterpreted "revelations" more frequently than many other religions.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I am reasonably confident in your reality based on my observations of your posts.
Do you trust others as part of your decision to accept him as real? For instance, Jim-Me is Real, having met two or more previously Real Jatraqueros. Does that influence your decision to consider him real?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
yes, Fugu, but your acceptance of my reality based on your observations of my posting is hardly a logical proof... only the testimony of the witness that is you. In other words, you are making the case for personal revelation (as long as it's not mystical, I presume).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Personal revelation is not useful in deciding what is Truth. It is useful in deciding whether or not you're going to believe something is true, but has no effect whatsoever on what the truth actually is.
Just because personal revelation doesn't effect what truth is doesn't mean that truth doesn't effect personal revelation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Just because personal revelation doesn't effect what truth is doesn't mean that truth doesn't effect personal revelation."
Of course it does. You can get any revelation you want if you try hard enough. None of them have to be true.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Jim-Me, what? I was taking up his seeming disbelief of reality, it wasn't a stand-in for anything else...
(Psst. Porter. "Affect.")
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tom, I agree with you completely-- it's not definitive and it's of no use in proving something abstractly. But it *is* the best thing you can go by. If you were presented with incontrovertible evidence that you were, in fact, there, you would have to say the belief was wrong, correct? In other words, again, the truth is what matters, even if your perception of it is wrong... you would not cling to your perception, no matter what personal benefit you got out of the memory.
Edit: KQ - does the edit make more sense to you? Iwas talking to Fugu, not you Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think that religion, whether divinely inspired or not, is an attempt to find a formula for creating the most stable and beneficial community possible. If we think of it in terms of biology, for any given aspect of human interaction (reproduction, child raising, obtaining food etc) there are a number of "evolutionarily stable strategies". Any given society will use a subset of these strategies, combined with some non-stable strategies.
For any given environmental situation (where the environment includes not only the the climate, soil etc. of a given area, but also the current human factors such as the state of technology and so on) there may be a single combination of all possible stable strategies which, if followed, would lead to a society which is maximally stable and maximally beneficial to the members of that society. This condition is, ideally, the condition that all societies are striving for. Each society likely follows certain ESS which are the same as those in the ideal case, and they also have certain startegies which are less than ideal. Each society therefore can look at another society and see things which are clearly shortcomings. However, some things they see as shortcomings are really just a different but equally good strategy, some really are inferior and some may even be superior but the viewer doesn't realize it because of his own cultural biases. Further, the current combination of strategies may be formulated in such a way that a given society could not get to the ideal situation without first taking some intermediate steps to a different ESS.
The problem with all of this is that when one is "inside" this jumble of strategies, so to speak, one cannot know what the ideal looks like- there isn't any way to measure whether one strategy or another is objectively better because all of the strategies are so interconnected that the effects of a single strategy cannot be measured.
This is where God comes in. If the foregoing simplistic view is more or less accurate, the place for God is in helping societies to transition from where they are now to the ideal state.
A complicating factor involved in all of this is the clear fact that societies are made up of individuals and societal mores are really just a measure of the mean of a population.This means that any transition to a different set of strategies really consists of a transition of the "mean" of the population. Further, there must be room made for the different successful individual strategies which may vary from the mean but which are still acceptable.
Once again, this is where God comes in. If every member of the society is in individual contact with deity then they will know when and to what extent their personal deviations from the mean are acceptable.
Now, to wrap this all up and get back to Rabbit's question. I think that all religions, philosophies etc. have a certain number of the "right" strategies mixed with the wrong ones. Some have a much higher ratio of the "right" strategies than others. If this is the case then there are two major factors which are important in choosing an ideology: 1) Which one has the highest ratio of "right" strategies? 2) Which one is most adept at abandoning the wrong strategies and moving toward the right one?
This relates to Rabbit's question in that one who is worried only about the first question could easily accept falseness in the mythology of an ideology as long as that ideology has a high ratio of the "right" strategies. However, falsehood in the mythology would be disastrous if one is also searching for an ideology which is strong in the second characteristic since paramount to those ideologies is the link to the objective source of truth.
In my opinion most humans can sense in an imprecise sort of way the gross differences between societies with a high ratio of the right strategies, but if there is a single set of strategies which is the very best then it seems to me that we require outside objective guidance to find it. Further, I think that on an individual level perhaps there is not one single ideology which one could immediately adopt which is the best for everyone. Perhaps intermediate steps are required first, and likely no extant ideology really contains all of the aspect sof the ideal. Therefore an individual consulting God might really receive a different answer based on his current circumstances.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Personal revelation is not useful in deciding what is Truth. It is useful in deciding whether or not you're going to believe something is true, but has no effect whatsoever on what the truth actually is.
Personal revelation is useful in discerning what is Truth and even if there is Truth--but yeah, it doesn't change the Truth.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Jim-Me, yes, thank you.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: I think that religion, whether divinely inspired or not, is an attempt to find a formula for creating the most stable and beneficial community possible.
This I disagree with completely.
I think Religion is an attempt to codify and pay deference to the fact that "there are things in heaven and on earth.. that man was not meant to know." That there are things, call them luck, fate, gods or what have you, that are bigger than man and at whose mercy man exists. A recognition of the fact that I have no claim on my body or existence-- I didn't create it and I do not get to choose when and how to give it up. A recognition of the fact that the mere physical reality of the world does not cover human experience, whether that experience is real or dreamt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think most organized religion tries to do both, by combining Rules to Live By with Reasons for Living.
Whether this is like getting chocolate in someone's peanut butter or spreading sardines over banana bread is entirely up to your point of view.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom -- I quite understand that. Its just not relevant.
I've actually been working on a work on the truth of perception (but not necessarily what it is a perception of) for quite some time.
In a sense I am making the case for personal revelation, though its not particularly relevant to my point (and only in a rather limited sense). My point was only in regards to whether faith was (edit: necessarily) based on truth or faith in truth, not any sort of judgment on whether that was good, bad or whatever.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I tend toward sardines and banana bread, myself...I like to keep the two seperate.
But, for example, Confucianism is a relgion by Jacare's standards, not by mine. And that is how I would have it, too.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Perhaps we could agree that faith is based on perceived truth? That is, based on the portion of the truth that we know?
Like the people groping the elephant in the dark room, we may not have the whole picture, but that doesn't mean that what we sense is wrong or useless.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think Religion is an attempt to codify and pay deference to the fact that "there are things in heaven and on earth.. that man was not meant to know."
Well, as you pointed out I am using "religion" as a sort of generalized shorthand for the way one understands the world & the way of defining the way a person should live.
I don't hold much with religious mysteries myself. Perhaps that is why we differ on this point.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
There are lots of simultaneous true explanations for the same event. For instance inside a computer, if you ask Q: Why did this flip flop change to a "1" or True state, you could answer it many ways.
You could explain it in terms of electrons and physics, A1: Because this voltage here was raised which caused these electrons to move that way, etc.
You could explain it in terms of electronics A2: Because this transisitor was turned on by this signal, etc.
You could explain it in terms of logic A3: Because it is part of a Nand Gate which became true because one of its inputs went low.
You could explain it in terms of machine code instructions A4: Because this ADD instruction added that register to this other register, causing this bit to go high.
You could explain it in terms of source code instructions A5: Because each time this loop executes, you add one to the index, which is what just happened that flipped this bit high.
You could explain it in terms of the end desires of the programmer A6: Because we're trying to find out if this number is a prime or a composite number, and so we have to loop through this algorithm to test it systematically.
My point is that every one of these answers is true. Scriptures are describing to us the top level truth, but we don't yet have all the substrate levels in between. That's not its purpose, to explain all the mechanics of everything to us. It's more to let us know what we need to know, the essentials, to help us grow as beings and move forward and upward. Therefore they tell us some stuff we don't completely understand, and also stuff we can sometimes misunderstand.
God can work miracles because he understands physics better than us. There's no contradiction between plate techtonics and miraculous earthquakes, for instance. It's because God understands plate techtonics far better than we that miraculous earthquakes are no problem for him.
[ June 22, 2005, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Have you been reading Tannenbaum?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I'm discussing the side point of what is necessary for a religious belief
And I'm glad we get to hear your views on that, but I would say that someone who does not subscribe to religious beliefs is probably not the best expert on what constitutes said beliefs. Actually, I would expand that and say that those who religious beliefs of any sort are not the best experts on what constitute religious beliefs as a whole. Somewhere in there you're making the assumption that all religious phenomena are similar, which they may not be. I can assume that zen buddhism is spiritual in the way that I'm accustomed to experiencing spirituality, but I can't actually know that it is unless I live the lifestyle and learn the required teachings necessary to become a full-fledged Buddhist.
You can't know what faith is like until you've experienced it, and most religious people will tell you that experiencing it in its fulness requires that you learn and practice for years. You can't pick it up from reading about it and you can't conjecture upon its nature.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can assume that zen buddhism is spiritual in the way that I'm accustomed to experiencing spirituality, but I can't actually know that it is unless I live the lifestyle and learn the required teachings necessary to become a full-fledged Buddhist.
Actually, according to most of the Zen Buddhists I know, it's almost completely unlike the way you experience spirituality. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Have you been reading Tannenbaum?
I've been reading a lot of different people, but not Tannenbaum. Why? Did Tannenbaum say something similar to me?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I'm a Norse Christian Jedi.
Jesus Rules.
Jedi's kick ass, and well, as a 97% Norwegian I must respect the fact that the true poet was 2nd only to the King.
That's why I'm a super hero and a sinner.
T
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Haven't read the whole thread, but I can just say that I don't believe the book of Job happened (Baba Batra 15b, I follow one of the opinions there stating he never was). I also follow the Rambam stating that the first few chapters of Genesis (about Adam, Eve, Kain and Able) are a story to teach us something (just like Job).
JH
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
quote:Personal revelation is not useful in deciding what is Truth. It is useful in deciding whether or not you're going to believe something is true, but has no effect whatsoever on what the truth actually is.
I definitely agree with this statement; and afr's summary that
quote:Personal revelation is useful in discerning what is Truth and even if there is Truth--but yeah, it doesn't change the Truth.
And so, I used personal revelation in coming to believe what I consider the truth, but what is actually true may or may not be what I believe.
I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired to each letter, the choice of words, etc. However, there is an important distinction to make between "inspiration" and "literally true," because the meaning of "literally true" has changed over time. I would say that the original autographs of all parts of scripture were "literally true" to the people they were written to. This means that when reading these texts today, we must interpret them not as we would interpret the articles in a newspaper or even a biography or history, but as we would interpret another text of the same genre in the culture and time they were written in. This gives us several different genres: Ancient Near East (ANE) Historical Narrative, ANE Law, ANE Covenant, ANE Wisdom Literature, Jewish Prophecy, Second Temple Judaic Apocalypse, Greco-Roman Biography, Greco-Roman Letter, Greco-Roman Rhetoric. These should all be interpreted according to the genre. So for instance, in the book of Chronicles, the chronologies listed are to be treated as factually true with no gaps, because they are part of a Historical Narrative. However, in the book of Matthew, the chronology of Jesus is part of the bios with a specific purpose, so we should allow for the existance of gaps. In Genesis 1-11, the events told should be counted as literally true, because they are also Historical Narrative, whereas in Revelation, which is of the Apocalypse genre, we should not expect the prophesies to have literally intended for the cataclysmic events described to take place to the level of detail described, but rather to be figuratively descriptive of the cosmic scope and importance of the events being described.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
I accidentally hit the "post" button before I was done.
To answer the second part of the question, which is what aspects of my faith depend on this, I would say almost all aspects of my faith depend on this.
If I found out that the above description of how to interpret the Bible was invalid and none of the events actually occurred, then I would conclude that God as I knew him does not exist, and if there is a "God", it is impersonal. I would reject the Bible as being useless, because it could then only be a medium with which to control my actions, and I would question why I should accept its moral or spiritual "lessons" at all. I would briefly flit with Hinduism in its most ancient form I could find and see if there is any way of reconciling that with what I see of reality, and if not I would probably live a brief hedonistic life and end in suicide.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And that's one of the reason why, in many cases, I find your religion so very sad.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And that's one of the reason why, in many cases, I find your religion so very sad.
So you *want* to see people flirt with hedonism and commit suicide? </deliberately obtuse>
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, the description Avin gave is, to me, that of a person stuck in an immature life and moral structure. The growth that he could have is stunted by his belief system that explictly says that it's not possible and implicitly influences him away from it. From my perspective, he will likely never become an adult in a moral or spiritual/religious sense.
Those who reject the idea of God but still live in pretty much the same mythological structure have most of the same problems. They continue to define that area in the same ways as that which they have rejected and are unaware of the wider variety that is possible. The person who thinks (in a paraphrase of The Brothers Karamazov "Without God, anything is permissible." means that people should or are necessarily going to fall into hedonism is sorely mistaken.
I realize that many people won't agree with this, but that's my perspective, and it makes me very sad.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Actually, according to most of the Zen Buddhists I know, it's almost completely unlike the way you experience spirituality.
I imagine so! So let's stop talking about "religion" like it's one single phenomenon.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
LDSers, do you believe your personal witnesses/revelations are different in form from those of other religions, or merely content? Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Avin's motivations do seem strange to me. I mean, if his only reason to make morally good choices and value his own life is because of his very specific beliefs about the Bible ... I think he may have missed the point of the Bible
Personally, I don't think that I would be too shaken by some incontrovertible discovery that rendered it impossible to believe my scripture to be literally true. I'm pretty flexible when it comes to incorporating new information. My whole world wouldn't suddenly come crashing down. My faith is based mostly on an innate feeling of moral purpose, personal experience with the divine, etc, none of which depend completely on scripture to survive.
That said, my beliefs would need to change a LOT if I did find the scriptures to be false. I'm not expecting it to happen anytime soon.
Foust, can you explain your question in more detail?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:LDSers, do you believe your personal witnesses/revelations are different in form from those of other religions, or merely content?
I honestly don't know. I don't know very much about the spiritual experiences of others.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
To be honest, I believe that the idea that "Revelation" was even an acceptable form of religious expression is a rather new thing. Therefore, you don't hear much about it outside of Mormonism. When you do hear about it, the subect is often rejected as other than acceptable and often considered idiotic or threatning. Notice, for instance, how much the Catholic representative tries to avoid the issue of definition. Notice, as well, how only Mormons are even picking up the subject.
My point in the above is this. The reason us Mormons can't answer the question about others recieving revelations is that it is a religious experience that other religions have rejected as legitimate forms of knowing the Truth. For them, at least in just about every discussion I personally have had and known by other religious people who aren't LDS, absolute truths cannot be determined outside of a religious proof text. They would never, for instance, define "finding God" or "Getting saved" as a revelation from God. For them it isn't a sign of Truth as much as a sign of a vague idea that they are Saved. Certainly they wouldn't go so far as to say it was a concrete message from God about a subject.
Let me define, for clarity, what Mormons mean by "Personal Revelation" in order to properly comapare and contrast other religious expressions. For Mormons, Revelation is (despite the quick and easy "feelings" useage here) a personal conversation with God. It may not be voices in our heads, but can come close. The nearest secular example I can give is when you first realized what a complicated mathematical formula means to the practical world. Before that realization the computations might have been mere curiosities or vague assignments in a classroom. It has often been described as an "ah ha" moment, although much stronger and memorable.
In other words, for Mormons true Revelation is more than a heartfelt recognition of something. Rather, it is a deep realization of relavancies to our own lives of things we are learning. Sadly, many Mormons seem to also not understand that revelation in LDS understanding is more than crying at a theater because of the emotional impact of a story. It is REAL exchange of information, with very strong emotional reactions.
Therefore, if a Mormon was to answer the question about others recieving Revelations, there is no "yes" or "no" or "on" or "off" explanation. That is why its called Personal Revelation! Our reaction to someone who claimed personal revelation completely opposite our own? First and foremost, has it brought positive or negative consiquences? Has it made that person love or hate more? What a person DOES with that revelation is as important to Mormonism as what it SAYS about truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that Mormons are hardly the only religion out there that believes in personal revelation.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
For a good discussion of this very subject of Mormon revelation and other Christian reactions, I would suggest reading Terry L. Givens "By the Hand of Mormon." He writes about how Mormonism's understanding of Revelation is dialogic rather than only emotional.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It's worth noting that Mormons are hardly the only religion out there that believes in personal revelation."
I would argue otherwise. In fact, I think I just did. Perhaps in a vague transindental sort of way, but hardly with the complicated meaning Mormons associate with the word.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avin: Iif not I would probably live a brief hedonistic life and end in suicide.
Why though? There's still a lot of meaning to life even without a God. There's so much beauty. Opera and the night sky come to mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I know you just did. But you're wrong.
There are actually a number of religions which believe that it's possible to directly commune with God in one form or another, even receiving answers to common questions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's worth remembering that people lived for thousands of years before the modern mystery religions made their appearance. The old pagan afterlives are not exactly places of hope; yet people somehow managed not to despair. The Håvamål has some stanzas relevant to this :
All wretched is no man, though never so sick; Some from their sons have joy, Some win it from kinsmen, and some from their wealth, And some from worthy works.
It is better to live than to lie a corpse, The live man catches the cow; I saw flames rise for the rich man's pyre, And before his door he lay dead.
The lame rides a horse, the handless is herdsman, The deaf in battle is bold; The blind man is better than one that is burned, No good can come of a corpse.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:My point in the above is this. The reason us Mormons can't answer the question about others recieving revelations is that it is a religious experience that other religions have rejected as legitimate forms of knowing the Truth.
This really isn't true. I suggest you vist the nearest Penticostal church this Sunday, just as an easy example. They very, very strongly believe in a two way exchange of information.
quote:For them, at least in just about every discussion I personally have had and known by other religious people who aren't LDS, absolute truths cannot be determined outside of a religious proof text.
Unless you're saying that LDS personal revelation is capable of superceding your religious texts, than Evangelical experience is again, identical.
I remember reading OSC's Lost Boys, and thinking how the Mormons in that story - in how faith is described - are basically identical to Charismatic Evangelicals.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If that is true, Foust, than those same Charismatic Evangilicals are hypocritical when describing "Mormon Holy Ghost" witnesses to Truth. You should read how those other religions that believe in personal revelation (if that is what it is they believe in) will MOCK the same (if it really is) kind of witness for Mormons.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"LDS personal revelation is capable of superceding your religious texts"
Actually, to a degree Mormons believe it can.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
You can have a revelation that shows you a unique exception to a rule, or tells you something that most people aren't aware of. But no individual besides the prophet is allowed to have and share revelations that countermand the scriptures for OTHER members of the Church. Personal revelation is personal.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:If that is true, Foust, than those same Charismatic Evangilicals are hypocritical when describing "Mormon Holy Ghost" witnesses to Truth.
Well, Evangelicals don't believe their revelations can contradict the Bible. If someone receives "a word from the Lord" that contradicts the Bible, then it is disregarded.
In what sense can personal revelation supercede the text of the Book of Mormon? Are you refering to the Presidents, like Hinkely, or can rank and file members have revelations that supercede the BOM?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Rat posted while I was typing.
Evangelicals are pretty much on the same page, Rat. It's fascinating.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You should read how those other religions that believe in personal revelation (if that is what it is they believe in) will MOCK the same (if it really is) kind of witness for Mormons.
Yep. Some of it is that, from what I've seen, Mormons believe in revelation with a lot of strings attached; many evangelical churches would find this unusual. Another bit is that their starting assumption is that you aren't in fact talking to God, so of course your revelations are just delusional and worthy of derision.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Notice, for instance, how much the Catholic representative tries to avoid the issue of definition.
First, Dagonee is not the only Catholic posting on his thread.
Secondly, to characterize his very appropriate modesty and reluctance in detailed talking about a deeply personal, formative experience as a *dodge* is rather disrespectful.
Occasional, if your goal is to have a dialogue with people or even to bring them around to your way of thinking, you really should reduce your stridency. The kind of tones you have used in the last couple of days are only good for preaching to the choir and rabble-rousing.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
So the comment has arisen that my dependence on the literal truth of the Bible for meaning is in some way "inferior" to reliance on myself or my own ideas. Two things:
First, I would not say that I rely on the Bible, but that I rely on God as revealed to me through the literal truth of the Bible. To deny the inerrancy of scripture in the way that I described it in my previous post does not directly destroy my beliefs, it only does so in that it denies the authority and reliability of the God I believe in. If God dictated a handful of stories that never actually happened to a people and told them it was their history, this God seems rather deceitful to me.
Second, I challenge anyone to give me an objective reason why my reliance on something (God) external to myself to provide meaning is in fact "inferior" to another person's reliance on his own ideas, standards, or philosophy. In my opinion, my position is superior (obviously, or I would not hold it). Mere words about how I will never be a "spiritual adult" or whatnot have no basis in anything. It seems very much to me that the Bible was historically written specifically for people who would take their source of meaning from the God and history revealed within it, and I have experienced great fulfillment intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually in doing so, although it is not always easy and constantly challenges me in all of the above areas. This to me is far superior to relying on myself, or indeed any personal revelation, because devout Muslims and devout Mormons can both claim personal revelation for their views that are diametrically opposed, but the historicity of the Biblical accounts cannot simultaneously be true with the historicity of holy texts of other religions, including modern ones such as naturalism.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you were relying on your actual biological father to help you through all your troubles, indeed to grant you immortality by killing himself : Would you consider that healthy?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Secondly, to characterize his very appropriate modesty and reluctance in detailed talking about a deeply personal, formative experience as a *dodge* is rather disrespectful.
Thanks, Jim-Me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: I don't hold much with religious mysteries myself. Perhaps that is why we differ on this point.
Sorry, Jacare... meant to answer this.
I think that's exactly the source of our difference. To me, a Religion without mystery is like biology without life or sociology without groups of people. Only a Mystery is worthy of being made into a Religion.
And, anytime, Dag... Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
King of Men, that analogy is at a different level than what we are discussing. The objections given before were on meaning and purpose. Even if I was relying on any human figure to "grant me immortality" as you suggest, I would still not draw any sense of meaning from that. It would be just some event in my life that was meaningless in and of itself. For instance, why should I desire immortality? What significance does my biological father have to me? What does it mean for him to kill himself? Who am I anyway? etc.
The point in contention here is that I see meaning in my life through the nature of God and reality revealed in scripture, in other words, an external source, and you made the claim that this is inferior to drawing meaning from purely internal sources. I don't see how this is so.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
King of Men,
Are you misinterpreting deliberately to provoke (as I did to some other poor soul recently) or just ignorant of the difference between submitting to death and killing yourself?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Occasional, your contention that Mormonism is the only religion that believes in personal revelation is a great example of the lack of knowledge of/interest in/respect for other denominations that was discussed earlier on this thread.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Occasional, your contention that Mormonism is the only religion that believes in personal revelation is a great example of the lack of knowledge of/interest in/respect for other denominations that was discussed earlier on this thread.
It is probably best to leave interpreting what religions other than one's own believe to adherents of those religions. As DKW pointed out, lots of religions believe in personal revelation. Saying that their revelations are not like Mormon revelations seems rather similar to accusations that the Christ of Mormonism isn't the same as the Christ of other Christian religions.
quote: Sorry, Jacare... meant to answer this.
I think that's exactly the source of our difference. To me, a Religion without mystery is like biology without life or sociology without groups of people. Only a Mystery is worthy of being made into a Religion.
Fair enough. My definition of "mysteries", as it refers to my own religion is basically things that God did or does that we don't understand yet, but we don't really need to understand anyway.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Different strokes, Jacare...
thanks for clarifying so concisely. You and I are yet another good reason for Annie's insistence that we not talk about religious experience quite so broadly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Are you misinterpreting deliberately to provoke (as I did to some other poor soul recently) or just ignorant of the difference between submitting to death and killing yourself?
When at any time you have the power to extricate yourself from the situation, I don't think there is a meaningful difference. If I ask someone to give me an overdose of sleeping pills, someone who will stop and revive me as soon as I give a signal, and the sleeping pills kill me, isn't that a suicide?
quote:The point in contention here is that I see meaning in my life through the nature of God and reality revealed in scripture, in other words, an external source, and you made the claim that this is inferior to drawing meaning from purely internal sources. I don't see how this is so.
I'm going to have to concede that one, since you are in fact drawing meaning from an internal source, to wit, your imagination. I think, however, that you slightly mis-understood the nature of MrSquicky's criticism. I believe he was saying, and I agree, that the particular meaning you have taken is un-necessarily limiting to your mental growth. In particular, if you are going to define Genesis as literally true, the logical twists and turns you have to know your mind into in order to ignore all the actual evidence will of necessity make you ignorant in an astonishingly wide array of subjects - from astronomy to zoology.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
OK... so you really are obtuse and not just faking it.
So you have no empathy or respect for Damon and Pythias, either, I suppose? Or, in more recent and locally popular mythos, what Mr. Spock does in Star Trek II is merely suicide?
Or in the news, the two marines who threw themselves on grenades in Iraq (no, this isn't hypothetical, both have been recommended for the MoH) are mere suicides, right?
Your contempt and complete failure to even try to understand what people are talking about weakens your position terribly because it becomes clear that you haven't really considered what it is you claim to be talking about.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I guess the point is that it's not actually a sacrifice if you go on living AND know the result AND set up the situation so you'd have to sacrifice yourself in the first place.
Spock's fictional sacrifice was in a lot of ways considerably more of a sacrifice than Christ's, depending on your opinion of the omnipotence of God.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Tom's right. I've never understood why the crucifixion is refered to as a "sacrifice" - nothing was lost, and losing something is... well, kind of a prerequisite for a sacrifice, isn't it?
Edit to add: To put it another way, calling the crucifixion a sacrifice is like calling a three-sided figure a "square." It simply doesn't meet the definition.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Just because a suicide accomplishes something apart from the actual death, doesn't make it less a self-killing.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I'm also with Tom on this one. Even when I was a kid, I couldn't understand why no one else seemed to have this thought; in fact, when I asked the question of adults a couple of times, I got very blank looks in response. Like the question made so little sense to them that they weren't even sure how to figure out what I was asking. "What do you mean? He DIED on a CROSS." "Well, but no, he is alive, right?" "Right, because he ROSE from the ..." and so forth. They thought I was missing the point; I thought they were missing my point. I suppose I was a pretty obnoxious kid. Questions, questions, questions.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sharpie, you're not the only one to have that thought, I assure you.
The point is that because he was both fully God and fully human, he experienced the same pain and torment a human would through death and pain and torment we can never know. It was not something that was to be undertaken lightly - in other words he didn't just stroll toward the cross thinking "Coolness! Let's get this over with so I can rise from the dead and kick some butt!"
The human part of him, his human body, suffered greatly. Not only that, the divine part of him was forced to bear the burden of sins for all in order that he could be considered a fitting blood sacrifice for atonement, so he suffered the torment of bearing the burden of sin, which he, a sinless man, had never borne before. Plus, he was separated from God, ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?") which was intensely painful for someone who had a deeper communion and relationship with God than we will ever know in this life.
So, he didn't go into the crucifixion lightly. Remember the prayer in the Garden? He actually asked to have the cup taken away so he didn't have to go through it.
It was a suffering and death on a scale no human can ever experience. No vulcan either. Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Except it was temporary, and then he went back to being God in heaven.
Compared to an eternity in heaven, whatever experiences Jesus had in his 33 years on Earth - no matter how terrible - really are trivial. No matter how much hyperbolic rhetoric you describe them with.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm not sure if this is in line with EVERY Christian denomination's theology, but Paul does offer one possible explanation for how this was a sacrifice and what it means for us -- that now no-one need suffer death without resurrection.
Sorry I can't look it up right now (lacking my software at the moment). But if I recall correctly it's in Romans I and the deal is that we share in Christ's death AND his resurrection. And if he hadn't gone through it, completely, neither could we.
I'm not claiming that this isn't anything more than Paul's logic on the matter, but it puts a perspective on the sacrifice thing. I mean, Jesus is God, according to our belief. So, he didn't have to do ANY of it. He could've kicked back and enjoyed heaven and never had to experience any of the pains of being human at all. That's a sacrifice in and of itself. God didn't have to come to Earth and become man. It was done for us. Then, the death and resurrection are also a sacrifice because (and I know the logic is tough to just accept here) God could've just gone back to heaven, no big deal. But in order for US to get to heaven, it was necessary for Jesus to die and be resurrected.
I don't know why that's true. I'm sure if someone tried to explain why it is true, I'd have a difficult time understanding (let alone agreeing with) their logic. But it seems pretty clear that it wasn't done for God's sake, but for ours.
And if we understood the why of that, we might understand a lot more about everything than we do now.
It'll be a good question to ask God when you get the chance.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Bob, I think you are referring to Romans 6
quote: 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yep. Thanks!
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
[thread derailment]
Hey, KOM. I've looked for info on The Håvamål that you quoted from, and only found an english translation with no explanation as to what it is. Any background links you can send my way? I've enjoyed reading the translations I've found, and want to know more.
[end thread derailment]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I don't know if this has already been covered. I have to go put my husband on a plane or I'd read the whole thread. But I can't imagine the Eve-made-from-Adam's-rib thing being literal. I mean, I know that's what it says. But I tend to think that it was the only way Moses could put into his language what was revealed to him. As we were saying before, the scriptures themselves abound in imagery and symbolism. Like the waters of Mara and the Brass serpent and a lot of other things.
And another story I hope is real is when the widow feeds Elija her last measure of meal... for several weeks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Håvamål is part of the Icelandic skaldic tradition; it might be thought of as the Nordic equivalent of the Hebrew Book of Proverbs. The title translates as 'speech of the High One', ie Odin. You'll note that at the end, it goes from general advice to describing the sort of spells Odin can do. Presumably people were adding their own glosses to it for a long time while it existed as an oral tradition; it was written down in early Christian times by Snorre.
Wikipedia has a short article on it, with some links. You might also want to try googling the Anglicised version of the name, 'Havamal'.
Interesting trivia : In my father's day, schildren in Norway studied Old Norse so they could read the sagas in the original. In these more degenerate times, we read translations; but the curriculum still includes at least one saga. I did the Saga of Gunnlaug Worms-tongue.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)