posted
I'm not mormon. But I do truly believe that there is a God and that he does love us. Sky: Does it really matter?? If you think of eternity (which the human mind can't actually percieve) our lives on earth are but a blink of time. The payoff for having faith is essentially eternal life in paradise. And the consequences for rejecting the obvious is eternal damnation in hell. For me this has nothing to do with saying "I fit into a group," it has everything to do with loving others enough to want to share with them eternal bliss.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this question is one that comes up frequently and is the most difficult to answer because there is no proof either way that is sufficient for anyone. before I dive into the thick of this you had another point id like to hit on. Christmas on the solstice, yes this is true. when priests were out on there own to convert and spread Christianityto the people of the world, most of the population were pagan at the time and paganism is strongly based on life and spirit . from myth or whatever i have been told the people could not let go of many of their (more harmless)traditions.hence we now have Christmas on the winter solstice and we decorate trees (very pagan, I can see no Christian relevance other than beauty) and look at easter we decorate eggs to celebrate the birth of Christ and his ressurection? as you can see there has been integration of tradition in religion, however this does not affect the foundation of religion or change its message. As to God and His lack of public appearances lately he really doesn't have to. Any analogy or religious argument could come The question of if there is a God is what you are asking, but lets look at it from that there is a God. He created man and put him on Earth for a short amount of time to prove his true nature and faithfulness. How could we do that if he was always here watching us in our faces and showing off His power with the new miracle of the week. It would become forced obedience and if not total slavery then indentured servitude at the least. This is why parole for criminals was instigated. you test them to see if they can follow rules but the whole time the PO is hanging over their shoulders and throwing around his power to where they really have limited chances to screw up. Works ok when reintroducing criminals to the world but not to get back to His graces. I suggest two books to ponder and maybe answer your questions yourself. the first is the New Testament, and thistime read it often and pray about what you have read. The second is "The Salmon of Doubt" by the great and sadly late Douglas Adams. Mr. Adams was a self proclaimed radical atheist but respected other people and their beliefs, he did not try to push his beliefs on anyone, only share his thoughts. In this book he tries to prove his points through science and technology. He presents his "4 ages of sand" theory. In the first age man turned sand into glass and made telescopes and viewed the heavens and saw that the planets revolved around the sun, not the earth and that the sun was part of our vast galaxy. when this was presented Galileo was taken before the church and told he could not say that the planets revolved around the sun, but could only say that it appeared to do so. now of course its true and of course its ridiculous, by forbidding galilieo to acknowledge these things they themselves inadvertently admitted that he was correct, however it has long been common knowledge that the two ways to gain power then were either though the military or through the church so in consequense the church became corrupt with power ambitious people. but still the telescope showed us that there was much vastness in the universe, one that many religions now embrace. the second age of sand was th microscope when we turned our interests inward and saw that there was just as much vastness in small things as in the large things. Mankind saw how things fit together on cellular and then on atomic levels. then came the age of silica which gave us computer chips and the ability to hold more information and perform math and other duties much faster than ever before. the final age was fiber optics tying together anyone who wants to get on the web. My feeble description here was that adams point was all this technology killed God, or rather proved that we can now grow past a useless fiction that has govered our lives for so long. i guess, though, that it's all really perspective though, because to me the whole article seemed to strengthen any belief or testimony in a diety in the first place. evoltion does explain a great deal as does adaptation but it all started somewhere by someone more intelligent than any of us with resources we cant comprehend and Im convinced that God exists and gave us these resources to begin with. i hope i didnt go on too long and perhaps gave you something to ponder
Posts: 5 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now this is why I like hatrack. This, this is funny :
ae said: "The lowest rung of the debate food-chain consists of people who resort to creating imaginary and inevitably one-sided conversations in order to prove a point."
Now see, I haven't heard of the debate food chain before, and I guess I should be taking this as an insult since it was in response to my post. To clarify, though, I happen to be quite capable of other forms of debate, and there's a time and a plce for everything, right?
In response to ae, Occasional said: "Maybe according to debate. Philosophy, on the other hand, is filled with such diological expressions. Its actually a rather ancient practice for explaining ideas. "
That's actually quite interesting-the contrast, that is. And its true enough, too.
Tom Davidson said in response to Occasional in response to ae in response to me: "The problem is that -- even in philosophy -- it's a cheap-ass form of argument, because you can ALWAYS make yourself sound more intelligent than your fictional counterpart."
See, yah gotta love Tom. Cause, well, duh! And yes, it is cheap, if not ass . Cheap meaning that it explains more quickly and easily with less words than another form of argument. Unfortunately, it has the effect, therefore, of not explaining everything entirely well, indeed, in some cases explaining very poorly and so tending to be illogical as well as annoying. The beauty of this type of argument, however, lies in its cheap-assness, because only smart people can argue with you, and if you do a good and thorough job, as I did , only really smart people can argue with you. And since I'm the only really smart person around...j/k . Seriously, though, even if a really smart person responds in a really smart way, they have to take the argument to my platform, and so the odds are very good that I would be able to logically crush them through clarification and explanation, thus I would have started with one form of argument, and switched immediately to another once the trap was sprung, all taking little time on either mine or the other's part, and winning the argument without even firing a shot. So cheap form of debate yes, and perhaps annoying as well, but it can be logical, and it can definitely be a very powerful form of argument. And if it means I'm a little low on the 'debate food chain', then by gum I say if the bigger dog's got you down, yah bite 'im on the underbelly Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little off-topic, but what Hobbes said reminded me of a funny and true story that happened to me and I feel compelled to share it for some reason.
Okay, it was back when I was in the Navy, working nights in what amounts in civilian terms as a kind of minimum security jail as the "warden" of my shift.
I got home after a particularly trying day when the "star" inmate woke up of the opinion that it was "Baffle the Guards" day. The annoying git was well-versed at doing all kinds of disruptive things that were just shy of landing him in solitary with cuffs and leg irons. By the time I got home I was exhausted. (I lived off-base.)
No sooner than I've stripped down to my skivvies, collapsed into bed, and just barely drifted off then a knock sounds at the door. I snap up to my feet, storm down the steps and wrench the front door open to reveal two conservatively dressed women who appear at first startled by my abrupt actions, and then literally horrified.
We stand there looking at each other for a moment, no words spoken. Just when I'm about to ask them what they want, they both turn and hurry off as though in fear of their lives.
I close the door, rather confused as to what just happened when I notice a peculiar breeze.
Suffice it to say that I'm a "boxers" kind of guy and had, apparently, during my vigorous run down the stairs managed to bounce a friend into view as I opened the door.
I guess that particular situation wasn't in the "What to do if..." training that these ladies most likely had gone through.
Oddly, no one else ever appeared at my door trying to preach the gospel after that. Not that I blame them (or that I need saving, either).
Posts: 55 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find all of what you guys are saying very interesting. I can't cover everything that has been said because that would be too long.
First of all I'm mormon and this is mostly our perspective.
"For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1:39 of the Pearl of Great Price (mormon scripture) This is the reason why it God will not show everyone about the gospel through divine power so that it cannot be denied. "Why not prove his existence to man and show that he is real" i.e. public overwhelming miracles.
In order to achieve eternal life which is more than immortality (living forever) you must A) be married in the temple B) Be baptized C) pay tithing D) other things; but A-C are the main ones. In order for all of these things to actually lead to eternal life god must allow for free agency. Free agency is what allows us to choose what we want to do in all things. Humans have this ability always. We always have a choice.
I also wanted to go over one other thing mentioned because i know the perfect scripture.
"And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence." Moses 1:2-3 (mormon Scripture)
This scripture makes clear to us that Moses could not endure God's presence without the glory of god. Moses was changed in order for him to be able to see god. This scripture also shows to us that god is a living being.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
:![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Tom Davidson said in response to Occasional in response to ae in response to me: "The problem is that -- even in philosophy -- it's a cheap-ass form of argument, because you can ALWAYS make yourself sound more intelligent than your fictional counterpart."![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Seriously, though, even if a really smart person responds in a really smart way, they have to take the argument to my platform, and so the odds are very good that I would be able to logically crush them through clarification and explanation, thus I would have started with one form of argument, and switched immediately to another once the trap was sprung, all taking little time on either mine or the other's part, and winning the argument without even firing a shot.
