quote:Rather, I'm looking for a God that doesn't appear dangerously insane.
Tom -- You can't go shopping for a God. You can't go to Target and find one that suits your fancy.
He is what He is. You may not agree with him, and because of that it may prevent you from holding any faith in him, but that is who He is.
You want God to come and explain why rotten things happen in life. And I would say, if you apply the effort, you can get that explanation. If you are teachable, if you give the word a chance to make sense, and after that give those explanations to grow in your heart a little bit... I promise you that you'll get those explanations. At least, that's what I pray for for you on a pretty much nightly basis.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Which is not to say that we won't miss our loved ones terribly, but in general death is no more a tragedy than growing up..."
And yet I often hear people say that God cured their cancer. Why?
It goes back to the faith thing that I mentioned earlier. I believe that man is able to affect change in this life through taking action based on true principles. I think that there is a great deal we don't understand about our own potential to effect change. Here is how it id put in the Doctrine and Covenants:
quote: And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food, and that not by the hand of an enemy.
44 And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me.
45 Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die, and more especially for those that have not hope of a glorious resurrection.
46 And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them;
47 And they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter.
48 And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed.
49 He who hath faith to see shall see.
50 He who hath faith to hear shall hear.
51 The lame who hath faith to leap shall leap.
52 And they who have not faith to do these things, but believe in me, have power to become my sons; and inasmuch as they break not my laws thou shalt bear their infirmities.
So once again you see that it is completely dependent upon the faith of the sick as well as those around them. Further, I think that it is clear once more that faith is something more than hope, desire, belief etc. There is a further component which means that faith in a false ideal or delusion is not faith at all.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You can't go shopping for a God. You can't go to Target and find one that suits your fancy."
Oddly, this is exactly what people do ALL THE TIME. No one believes in a God they can't stand, or who is incompatible with their own beliefs.
------
"And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed."
This is the tricky bit, Jacare. So those people who were healed of their cancers were not "appointed unto death," but the ones who weren't WERE? The problem with this, from the standpoint of a skeptic, is that it's awfully convenient.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one believes in a God they can't stand, or who is incompatible with their own beliefs.
That's not quite true. Jesus begged for the cup to pass from him - belief was not convenient at the time. Joseph Smith went through some absolute hells, and was given some commandments that he dreaded carrying out and put off doing so for more than a decade.
Heck, anytime you hear of a "wrestle before God", it means that something being commanded or requested is at odds with the would-be disciple.
After the wrestle, though, there is usually no conflict. Either the person has changed himself to fit God, or else has ceased to believe God is asking something he doesn't want to hear.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is the tricky bit, Jacare. So those people who were healed of their cancers were not "appointed unto death," but the ones who weren't WERE? The problem with this, from the standpoint of a skeptic, is that it's awfully convenient.
Sure it is. This is the reason that healing is generally limited to those who believe and is not used as a "sign".
Here is a bit of scriptural support for that:
quote: A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
quote: And neither at any time hath any wrought miracles until after their faith; wherefore they first believed in the Son of God.
The purpose of healing and so forth is not for the purpose of conversion but for the purpose of blessing those who believe. This is the exact reason (to my mind at least) for which so much emphasis is given on the role of the holy ghost in conversion. Miracles do not convert people, and while they may create interest in someone they do not change anyone's heart.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Jesus begged for the cup to pass from him - belief was not convenient at the time. Joseph Smith went through some absolute hells, and was given some commandments that he dreaded carrying out and put off doing so for more than a decade. ... After the wrestle, though, there is usually no conflict."
The difference between this and the situation I'm describing is that Jesus and Joseph Smith had presumably ALREADY shopped around and settled on a belief, and just delayed enacting a commandment because they were afraid of the repercussions. They ALREADY picked their God; the awkward commandments came later, after they'd had sufficient reasons to make their choice.
For that matter, when someone is described as "wrestling" with one of God's commandments, it's worth noting that USUALLY that person is depicted as giving in when he finally receives an unequivocal answer from God. In my experience, this kind of communication is actually pretty rare.
--------
"The purpose of healing and so forth is not for the purpose of conversion but for the purpose of blessing those who believe."
Except that they're inconsistent blessings. It's not God's fault that Sally gets sick, perhaps -- but surely it's His fault that He chose not to heal her when she, as a believer, desperately asked? Why, when she asks, doesn't He just TELL Her it suits His plans for her to die?
Why do we get all teary-eyed over the death of Christ, but do NOT regard Sally's death as a sacrifice of equal merit?
quote: No one believes in a God they can't stand, or who is incompatible with their own beliefs
Of course this is absolutely true. People view God as having attributes which they believe are good and as doing things which they consider right. Consider: if someone says "I can't believe that a loving God could condemn anyone to hell" we learn volumes about the speaker but nothing at all about God.
So how may we learn what God is really like? The only way which we may make any headway at all is by 1) Trying to find out through experiences with God and 2) Trying to found out by others' experiences with God. Number 2 we must realize is always filtered through another's hopes, upbringing, culture, perceptions etc. This is why number 1 is absolutely vital and anything else is a poor substitute. And that is also precisely why in the last days peace wil reign- there will be no misunderstanding about who God is or what he requires.
quote: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
posted
"And that is also precisely why in the last days peace wil reign- there will be no misunderstanding about who God is or what he requires."
This is the big problem I have with the whole thing, Jacare. Even Mormons believe that their God has the power to clear up this misunderstanding right now.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's worth noting that USUALLY that person is depicted as giving in when he finally receives an unequivocal answer from God. In my experience, this kind of communication is actually pretty rare.
Laman and Lemuel met angels. They had unequivocal answers, and they still did whatever they wanted.
That kind of communication, though - the unequivocal answer that comes at the right time after a wrestle - isn't rare. Though. I mean, there are some concerns I've had that were only cleared up in that way.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Except that they're inconsistent blessings. It's not God's fault that Sally gets sick, perhaps -- but surely it's His fault that He chose not to heal her when she, as a believer, desperately asked? Why, when she asks, doesn't He just TELL Her it suits His plans for her to die?
Two things: first, not everyone has faith in equal levels. Perhaps Sally simply has not developed the faith to be healed. If God really follows the rule that I have posted several times- no miracle without faith- then He cannot heal Sally. Second, Sally doesn't see the whole picture. She doesn't know what is best for her, so while she is perfectly in order to pray for what she thinks she needs there is a very good reason why Christ in his example of how prayer should be done said "Thy will be done".
As to why he just doesn't tell her that she'll die- well, sometimes he does; and I think that this too is a product of faith.
quote: This is the big problem I have with the whole thing, Jacare. Even Mormons believe that their God has the power to clear up this misunderstanding right now.
Again we come up to a basic difference in our understanding of who is the agent and who is the recipient of the action. I think that the reason that in the last days all men will know God is not because he has changed or because he has changed men but because men have changed.
posted
I don't think God has to change OR to change Men in order to, say, write a really long message of fire in the sky that can't be erased and doesn't move with the wind. It's not that hard to send an unequivocal message.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Certainly, a lot of people do "shop around" for a God that will endorse all of the things in their lives and give them everything they want. They're immature in their faith and tend to view God as an outgrowth of themselves instead of the other way around.
It would be easier if I didn't have to struggle with my own multitude of sins and failings by just saying, "Well, the God I believe in says it's okay." Or that if any problem or desire that I ran across I could simply pray for and POOF!!!!!!!!! wish granted.
It's not going to happen, though. God is constant and has laid out a pretty straightforward set of rules. It's just amazing how hard it is for us to take those steps and not move away from them.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So how may we learn what God is really like? The only way which we may make any headway at all is by 1) Trying to find out through experiences with God and 2) Trying to found out by others' experiences with God. Number 2 we must realize is always filtered through another's hopes, upbringing, culture, perceptions etc. This is why number 1 is absolutely vital and anything else is a poor substitute. And that is also precisely why in the last days peace wil reign- there will be no misunderstanding about who God is or what he requires.
Jacare, your rejection of number 2 is precisely why number 1 must also be rejected [please note that I am speaking philosophically - I have no wish to pass judgment on your beliefs or in any way persuade you to abandon them. I only wish to explain why I do not find your arguments persuasive.] If we have what we believe are experiences with God, they are still filtered. The only difference is that they are filtered through our own hopes, upbringing, culture, perceptions, etc. All understanding is subjective.
My favorite college professor, Matthew C. Bagger, wrote a book on this exact subject called Religious Experience, Justification, and History. I highly recommend it - it is a life-changing book.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom seems to want God to prove His existence, so that those who are uncertain of His existence can believe. But that belief would not be a choice, chosen freely, but one forced upon them by His appearance.
Absolute proof of His existence -- especially to those who do not already believe -- damages free will.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think God has to change OR to change Men in order to, say, write a really long message of fire in the sky that can't be erased and doesn't move with the wind. It's not that hard to send an unequivocal message.
Unless the whole point of existence is such that the only ones who get unequivocal messages are the ones who don't need them anymore.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare, your rejection of number 2 is precisely why number 1 must also be rejected [please note that I am speaking philosophically - I have no wish to pass judgment on your beliefs or in any way persuade you to abandon them. I only wish to explain why I do not find your arguments persuasive.] If we have what we believe are experiences with God, they are still filtered. The only difference is that they are filtered through our own hopes, upbringing, culture, perceptions, etc. All understanding is subjective.
Well, first off I don't reject number two, I just think that it must be taken into account. Second, while all experiences are of course filtered through your own culture etc there is one important difference between you and others who have experiences: You are the one who experiences and interprets while everything else is second hand. That means that automatically the experience is more valid for you because you were there.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I don't consider my belief to be unfounded OR unexamined. I consider belief in God to be a constantly changing, dynamic relationship.
As for "mutual respect" -- that is for a relationship between equals. And I have never considered myself His equal. Nor do I believe that I could ever be.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom, I don't consider my belief to be unfounded OR unexamined. I consider belief in God to be a constantly changing, dynamic relationship."
Out of interest, what kind of dynamic relationship did you have with God before you believed in Him?
"As for 'mutual respect' -- that is for a relationship between equals."
I disagree. While it's often used in that context, it's worth noting that it's possible to respect someone who ISN'T your equal -- and to treat that person respectfully.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, why should we trust our own experiences? We understand our experiences through our perceptions, which can change at any time for any number of reasons. I don't think that experience (mine or others) can ever be a valid justification for belief.
rivka, I still don't understand how absolute proof of God's existence would damage free will. Just because it's unequivocal doesn't mean I can't reject it. I can deny the existence of your shoe and you can throw it at me and make my nose bleed, but I still have the power to keep on rejecting its existence despite the overwhelming evidence of my bleeding nose.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Out of interest, what kind of dynamic relationship did you have with God before you believed in Him?
That's a great question, but one that I cannot answer. I grew up in a religious home. My dad might be able to answer it, but he's not a BBS fan.
I believe that my relationship with God is better than mutual respect -- although I believe that is there as well. There is mutual love. Perhaps the closest analogy is a parent-child relationship. Does a child always understand why their parents do what they do? No, but if the parents are loving and capable -- and I believe that He is infinitely so -- the child must trust that their actions are for his good.
Is it easy or simple? Most definitely NOT.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we have what we believe are experiences with God, they are still filtered.
Some of them are filtered. Certainly trying to express them is impossible since they are ultimately inexpressible.
Some of them, however, are pure, raw intelligence pooling in your mind, or a person's spirit (matter more refined) jumping at and grasping something it recognizes, or the mind fusing with eternity for the briefest of glimpses.
We can quibble about the fruits of such encounters, about who receives and who doesn't, and who misuese them and who misunderstands them and who wastes them and who lets them sink into their being and effectuate change and why (or why not -- really, why not?), about the impossibility of defining them in terms that all individuals find acceptable, about filtering them through cultural heritages, discursive modes, personal histories and prejudices, etc.
But ultimately there is, I think, this:
Testimony and faith.
That's all we have. And teleological though it may be, there must be a reason for that all and not another theoretical 'all' (skywriting, a face in the heavens, an objective proof). It's circular, but truth if it is truth requires circularity (doesn't it? I don't know about that one).
Words lead to faith leads to experience leads to words.
I'm not trying to be flippant or obtuse. The imagery and the reasoning is always going to fail. It seems cruel that language has to be the entry point, considering its limitations. And yet it is the best mediator I know.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare, why should we trust our own experiences? We understand our experiences through our perceptions, which can change at any time for any number of reasons. I don't think that experience (mine or others) can ever be a valid justification for belief.
If you can't trust your own experiences then you can trust absolutely nothing. In that case you become paralyzed by a philosophical quandry. All of the decisions anyone makes on a daily basis are based entirely on previous experience and genetics. There is nothing more.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs.M, people who repeatedly ignore the incontrovertible evidence of their senses are called insane. If I whack you upside the nose with a shoe and you still honestly professed doubt in its existence, it would be time for a neurological exam, neh?
Sopwith, I agree, actually. But that's not something I can show as tangible evidence to anyone else.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's someone wanting an empirical answer to the old question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I can't take you to God. I'm trying to find my own way and if you follow with me, you may find yourself as lost as I am.
I can point in the general direction, though (scriptures) and tell you to follow your heart.
When your destination isn't marked on a map, but you still must arrive there, you set out on the most meaningful adventure. You don't find enlightenment, you arrive at it.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pat, all headbanging aside, why shouldn't people judge God based on perceived fairness? Surely He doesn't need the PR help; He's responsible for His own image.
Heck, by what other yardstick is it even POSSIBLE to judge God? And if we can't judge God, why should we even try to have a relationship with such an inscrutable and unknowable entity?
From Patrick:
quote:God is no respecter of persons. It's his world, his plan, his salvation. He gave you life, an opportunity to return to live with him, and the free agency to make it so. If you don't agree on his rule of the game, then it's too bad for you.
Tom's objections are starting to look a lot like the ones I had when I decided to leave the Church. This does not surprise me.
The issue at hand is one of judging God.
The Bible teaches us that we should worship God because he is worthy. Is it accurate to say that anyone who truly worships God believes him to be worthy of praise?
And if so, does that not suggest that the worshipper has judged God to be worthy? And if this judgment of God is not necessary to worship Him, how then can you come to have a relationship with Him?
A relationship involves, first, presence of at least two entities. An active relationship involves interaction. Any sufficiently complicated relationship between two intelligent parties involves communication.
What I like to point out is that each individual necessarily must have their personal definition of what it means to be "worthy", and therefore the real difference between the man who accepts the Judeo Christian God and His laws and the man who rejects Him is that the expectations for one relationship were met while the expectations for the other were not.
The difference, in the end, is one of expectations.
Take Mack for example, who is currently experiencing what may or may not be a crisis of faith, depending on her definition.
It seems to me that Mack's bitterness toward God (forgive me if you would not describe it like this Mack) comes from the same place all bitterness comes from: unmet or unrealistic expectations. Mack obviously feels that having willingly performed those things she was asked to do and purposefully avoiding those things she was asked not to do--all the while never losing her faith in Christ in spite of the nearly unbearable situations that she has had to endure--that at minumum her relationship with God might afford her some kind of peace or comfort. She's looking for the tradeoff in the relationship, just like any relationship.
Of course, I think that EVERYONE shops--though not necessarily at Target --for God in their own way. True, you may believe in God without ever having searched for one of a different name, but there had to be some point in your life where you decided to "buy" the one you have. Some posts in this very thread describe what I'm talking about. "I believe in God because <insert sale data here>".
And I know that could sound really unfeeling if you chose to interpret it that way, but that is not the way in which it is intended.
Every testimony carries with it a story of fulfilled expectation. Every time someone says I believe in God <because>, it is a story of fulfillied expectation.
By this I'm trying to show that Judgment is a necessary part of any meaningful relationship. Which is to answer the question "Who are we to jugde God?" very simply:
We are the ones with whom you say God wants a relationship.
And I would also suggest, like Tom, that any being that gave to humanity a choice between realationship without expectations or two-way communication and damnation would have to be dangerously insane.
The important question that arises from all of this is: which expectations of God are fair?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can't trust your own experiences then you can trust absolutely nothing.
No, you can have absolute trust in nothing. Since perceptions of experiences are by their nature subjective, they give you probability rather than absolutes.
quote:In that case you become paralyzed by a philosophical quandary.
I haven’t.
quote:Mrs.M, people who repeatedly ignore the incontrovertible evidence of their senses are called insane. If I whack you upside the nose with a shoe and you still honestly professed doubt in its existence, it would be time for a neurological exam, neh?
Ah, the sense argument. Okay. Dr.M is color-blind. His senses tell him that my red shirt is green. I am not color-blind. I tell him that the shirt is red and he repeatedly ignores the incontrovertible evidence of his senses. I am fairly certain that he is not insane. Your argument presupposes that senses are infallible. I disagree.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Ah, except what happens when the 'fulfilling' is completely more intriquing, powerful, intelligent than the expectations? This isn't simply a matter of "Oh I feel more secure now that my life is in the hands of God" -- religion can be a crutch. But sometimes it is also a whap of mind-numbing truth in the dark.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:senses themselves are processed through subjective means
Exactly. This is God's great trick. The whole, let's wrap up these spirits in physical matter and temporal time and let the ensuing pain and tensions, sorrows and joys engrave good (or bad) into their minds and onto their souls thing.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Of course many people believe in God because they feel God went BEYOND their expectations, but can you at least concede that everyone has a bare minimum of expectations that must be met in order for their relationship with God to continue?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I agree that the senses are not infallible, and are subjective.
But that's part of the problem. Then there is NO evidence -- flaming letters across the sky included -- that cannot be explained away.
Anything that CAN be absolutely undeniable (and in our day and age, we are such skeptics that there may be no such thing) would take away free choice; and anything short of that can be explained away.
Good thing my belief isn't based on flaming sky writing. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, you can have absolute trust in nothing. Since perceptions of experiences are by their nature subjective, they give you probability rather than absolutes.
Of course we can recognize this intellectiually, but practically it makes no difference whatsoever. All of your decisions will continue to be based on your experiences, what else could they be based on?
quote: "In that case you become paralyzed by a philosophical quandary."
I haven't.
Of course you haven't, and the reason you haven't is precisely because nobody behaves as if they doubt all of their experiences. It is not possible to do, for even behaving as if you doubt your experiences would be something developed through your experiences.
posted
Odd Beliefs Alert- Because Christianity's view of God frustrates me so much for reasons I can't figure out.
This is how I see it. In my eyes there is no heaven or hell. No demons making people suffer. People suffer because sometimes it's the weather of things, sometimes there are natural disasters that make no sense and destroy whole entire villages and people's lives while at the same time sparing other people's lives and belongings without any kind of logical reason at all. Sometimes it's the actions of people themselves. For example, families with histories of abuse continuing the pattern over generations because no one has figured out that this is just not working! They will sit there and try to do the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results and when they do not get it they have the nerve to wonder why. God is not responsible for this, neither is the devil, it's just the way things are. Bad things happen to people regardless of how many rules they follow, regardless of how many conventions they obey and that is all there is to that. But this does not mean that life is empty and meaningless because the whole universe is alive with purpose and intelligence. My view on God is impossible to explain because to me God is not something that can be separated from us, the world and life. Or maybe it's just because I'm uncomfortable with religion, the rules,the structure, the way most of the Christain church seems to focus more on silly things like homosexuality than on rape and child molestation. The way everyone seems to be barking up the wrong tree! Really, I shouldn't complain or stress about it, it just has a negative impact on the culture, circulating ideas that we don't need such as, "You are suffering because you deserve to suffer because you are a sinner." and other such concepts. Sometimes this is the way things are and it's time to fight and to shift things even if it means completely abandoning whatever faith you have been born in. Sometimes it involves doing something that is so difficult, but not impossible.
But then at the same time I have some sort of odd faith in SOMETHING. Mainly I believe in the threads between human beings. That these things are something that needs to be protected no matter what and nothing is more important than those threads, those lines. I believe in breaking and bending God's laws for these lines if the need should arise....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:but can you at least concede that everyone has a bare minimum of expectations that must be met in order for their relationship with God to continue?
Of course. But when you believe that (at least the reasons for) those expectations (the tiny driving force) come from God and from the fact that all individuals here knew him and were affected by him and already had a relationship with him previous to this existence, you have a rather nice, tidy out. Of course, we Mormons are full of those.
I should add that, by nature, my sympathies lie much more with the rational unbeliever than the believer who believes in a God I don't recognize (although I do respect the act of that belief). What I mean by that is that I can understand the whole thing of doubting the subjective experiences of others.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But when you believe that (at least the reasons for) those expectations (the tiny driving force) come from God and from the fact that all individuals here knew him and were affected by him and already had a relationship with him previous to this existence, you have a rather nice, tidy out."
So, just to clarify: it's currently God's plan that Mac, Caleb, and I are leaning towards thinking He doesn't exist, based on a conversation we had with Him before we were born?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
God's plan that you're leaning towards no? No, because that would invalidate agency. God's plan that you're questioning? Yes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any thoughts as to why WE deserve the special treatment, and you guys just get the run-of-the-mill revelatory stuff?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think you're getting special treatment? Just because I'm not wondering at the moment doesn't haven't wondered in the past, and that I won't wonder in the future. Pat's talked about the struggles he went through, and I'm 100% certain Zal has wondered and struggled on his own.
quote: So, just to clarify: it's currently God's plan that Mac, Caleb, and I are leaning towards thinking He doesn't exist, based on a conversation we had with Him before we were born?
Must be a Mormon thing, I don't remember this being brought up in any church I've been to, or any readings of the Bible that I've done.
Now, back to the discussion:
Tom, what exactly do you believe? Please, let us know so that we can all be working from even footing here. Currently, you're asking questions and attempting to pick apart other's beliefs. But in the same sense, you aren't willing to lay it on the line and say "Here is what I stand for. Here is how I believe it all works. Here is TRUTH."
The rest have answered the ante and the call. Lay your cards down on the table, friend.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to begin with, each person has a unique relationship with God.
But, speaking for myself, there are times when I doubt and question. Faith is not the answer. It's just opening yourself up to different questions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
-- or -- the strivings are good, the questions are good, but you have a huge influence in where they lead (and I don't mean by this that only a conversion to Mormonism will be a successful manifestion of the questioning).
And I don't like the word plan. Or at least not in the sense of God as chessmaster (or Glass Bead Game artist?). It's too strongly suggestive of jumping through hoops or hopping squares on your way to the castle in Candyland. This is not to say that I disbelieve the ultimate cause-effect chains that form the practice of religion (or of any good works). But the messiness of life, the very fact that all these tough questions come up heartens me. These things create experience instead of conditioning. And experience is good. These precepts that Mormons live by are also good and there's something to be said for creating good habits and living by 'the rules,' but ultimately it's experience, the situations, feelings and relationships cause by the tensions inherent to this life, that deepens understanding of God and his purposes.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference, again, is in the expectations.
For me to accept the Christian god (and note here that expectations do tend to change throughout your life) I would need God to meet several criteria that I feel are perfectly fair. My criteria, however, require a lot more activity from God than just a feeling of peace and security within myself. That I already have.
But for others this is all that's required for them to accept the Bible's version of God's role in their life.
How can we come to a commonly accepted ground of expectations that are fair of God? Pat thinks that Tom's construction paper test is expecting far too much of God. Tom thinks the test is being open to communication from a God that has been nothing but unclear to him in the past. He WANTS to believe, but he NEEDS a relationship with a being that he can trust wholeheartedly. What expectations are fair when it comes to asking God to meet that trust?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But that's not something I can show as tangible evidence to anyone else.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
