posted
Okay, rather than appealing to the masses, you could also just talk directly to me. You don't have to answer to anybody but you will have to answer to Jesus (my beliefs aside, I'm reaaaally kidding about that. it's one of the best lines in SCRUBS season 1, and I had to throw it out there.) Also, the previous post was in response to dkw..or rather, dkw's thread made me write that. I started it and then got caught up in the end of the Seahawks' game.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's objecting to you talking about him (in your post to ElJay) rather than to him.
Which I have just done as well. Ooops.
akhockey, it is not a good idea, when discussion is heated, to throw out lines that you don’t mean from TV shows no matter how good you think they are. It’s hard enough work to get people to understand what you do mean, without confusing the issue unnecessarily.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, now I see. He might as well object to ElJay's post, then - accusing him of 'small spiritual growth', no less! Not that I disagree with her, by any means. But since I'm off to bed, he's safe from any further injury to his pride, at least from me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, when you return, now that dkw has answered your question perhaps you could address her response?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I figured it wasn't such a great idea, dkw, but at the same time I was really unable to take anything seriously anymore. But I apologize and I'll try to be more coherent from now on.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you're not really twisting his words, but you are drawing conclusions for him that are not reflective of all the possible conclusions. For example you stated earlier:
quote:Either the Bible is a reliable guide, or it isn't. If it is not, then the miracles performed by Jesus, the basis of your whole faith, suddenly look rather less amazing.
Now, I think we agree that the killing and rape of children, as described in Numbers 31, is an evil act. If it didn't actually happen, then the Bible is unreliable in this specific instance. If it happened but was not ordered by your god, then Moses - a major source, if not the actual writer - is unreliable; this weakens the whole initial part of the Bible. And if it did happen, and was ordered by Yahweh, then you are serving an entity of really deep evil. So yes, I do think you should be losing sleep over this; in particular, the last possibility would worry me deeply.
You're saying that either a person's faith is completely false or based entirely on evil. You leave no room for a possible system of beliefs that contains both a caring God and a just God. That's what you believe, and that's fine because everyone's belief is a very personal thing. Without ever having stated my own personal beliefs, I've tried to make the point that there are different ways to view a passage of scripture without being inherently evil, all depending on what your personal view of God is. The posts on this thread have shown that there are indeed many different ways to view the interpretation of the Bible.
Obviously there is no way to definitively say that this person's interpretation is correct while this other person is just a bad, evil man. That's why each person's beliefs have to be made individually based on personal knowledge, experiences, and perspectives of the world. Regardless of a person's beliefs, there are certain standards and ethical rules that a person should instinctively live by. That doesn't change whether a person is an atheist, agnostic, or religious fanatic. So is it that wrong to structure your beliefs based on those moral codes, to adjust your belief in God to match what you believe is morally right? If that's the case, your message should not be "Your God sucks" but rather, you should be trying to convey to people the importance of ethical principles. Once people have acquired that, their belief in God will fall into place.
(I don't even know why I feel like I need to do this, but: This in no way reflects the thoughts or opinions of anyone other than myself. )
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, sorry I somehow missed your post up there, but you're right, I am fresh out of high school and I am still growing spiritually, and I probably won't be able to convey my beliefs as well as I'd like to.
KoM, you really aren't injuring my pride any, so you don't need to feel bad about that. I'm just getting really annoyed by the way you treat my opinion as if it doesn't matter, and that I, consequently, don't matter.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is no insult to be at a level of spiritual development suitable to your age and experience.
When you’re used to talking about your beliefs primarily with people who share a common vocabulary, experiences, and assumptions, it can be hard to express exactly what you mean to an audience that doesn’t share those commonalities. Hatrack is often difficult at first, both for religious folk and atheists, because we have friends here on all sides of the faith questions, and we try not to favor one perspective over the others. It can mean learning a whole new vocabulary, to express certainty in your own position while acknowledging and respecting others’.
Edit: :snort: This post was supposed to come right after KoM’s, and was written to him. It seems to work just as well addressed to akhockey, though. Might be a parable in that. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's definitely a problem of mine, trying to find a way to convey what I mean without restorting to vocabulary that only makes sense to myself and my friends. Inside jokes aren't so funny to those on the outside I guess...
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming no unreasonable posts between when I began typing this and when the reply is added, the thread is back on track (or at least back within forum guidelines). Leave it there, or I will lock it without further discussion (whether it gets back on track again or not). If you are unable to post an opinion without including insult or derision, you may refrain from posting.
quote:My understanding of the Old Testament, which is mine and mine alone, and not informed by any study of the subject, is that it is a codification of the oral history and myth of a people. Much like the victors in any conflict throughout history have been known to say "We won because God was on our side,' so did the people of the old Testament. Many misguided things have happened in the name of religion throughout history. The ones that happened in this time period ended up as part of a holy book.
If this is the case, then what use is the Old Testament? If so, what we're left with is the unreliable witnesses of the descendants of people who couldn't even tell when g0d was on their side, you know? How are we left to believe that there was any g0d involved at all? Much less anything that this book says about what that g0d may have been like.
So then I'm left wondering which bits are supposed to be the sacred bits indicated by the "Holy" in "Holy Bible."
Or does it not matter except for the bits about Jesus?
dkw said
quote:I would say, God's actions as observed (and interpreted) by men and women.
This seems to me because it leaves you in a place where you don't know what counts as g0d's action and what counts as human interpretation. Did g0d cause plagues? Or did the Israelites on think he did? Did g0d want the Midianites killed or did Moses only think g0d wanted all the Midianites killed? So then when you're trying to make use of the Bible to know g0d through his actions, you're on very unsteady ground.
akhockey
quote:I definitely agree that the Bible is God's Word as translated by man, though.
But if three believers can't agree on how much of the Bible is g0d and how much is man, then how useful can it be? g0d may have committed no behavior you have to rationalize away, or else he could be the most demonic creature imaginable, but you can't really tell.
So why decide to worship this g0d despite the confusing and difficult evidence?
If the Bible was written by a group of people, who, like so many people, were just a little too willing to interpret any good luck they recieved as g0d's hand, why conclude that there was even a g0d to get involved?
I mean, as I implied above, many of you may simply say that the Old Testament is not the important part. To some of you, it's the New Testament, or the Book of Mormon that's the important part, so no matter how hole-y the Old Testament is, it's not where your faith is based, so whatever g0d is rumored to have done then....
But this g0d thing, it's all rumor. You have no particular reason to think that the New Testament is a more historically accurate rendering of g0d's dealings with man-- it's just more consistent with the sort of g0d most people want.
And the New Testament could just as easily be oral traditions passed on and then written down. A big-fish story. Considering how long it took to get written down, this is not at all far-fetched.
Or perhaps it's all misinterpretations and there was a g0d involved, but he was just trying to say, "Sorry for the inconvenience," and it got a bit garbled.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why we Mormon's really like the idea of having a modern, living prophet. We believe that we have unifying guidance in these confusing matters. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's why we Mormon's really like the idea of having a modern, living prophet.
Except that while your church is better able to respond to the changing vagaries of fashion, it's still ostensibly built on the same shaky foundation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question of how much to believe of the Old Testament, and whether it's worth putting faith into a religion which is built on stories that we're free to dismiss on our own initiative.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: So then when you're trying to make use of the Bible to know g0d through his actions, you're on very unsteady ground.
Yep. It’s pretty shaky sometimes. Fortunately, I’ve got a few other legs to stand on as well. Those of us in the Wesleyan tradition use what we call the quadrilateral – scripture, tradition, experience, and reason are all ways to know God.
By the way, does your odd capitalization practice have some deeper meaning, or are you just using it to be 1337?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is off topic, but dean, what is the significance of your use of the term "g0d" rather than "god"? It almost seems like you're trying to outwit an obscenity filter or something, but there is only one swear word that Hatrack filters out, and "god" isn't it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's cool, Dana. I like that "reason" is one of the ways to know God.
Tom, it has always seemed to me that LDS teachings do not focus much on the Old Testament, except for parts that have been specifically noted as important. (The Fall, for example.) That is why so many LDS, myself included, are not terribly familiar with the OT. Even in our Sunday School classes that cover the OT, we don't go over everything with a fine-toothed comb. We focus on certain parts and practically ignore others.
It is interesting to note that when studying the Book of Mormon in church lessons, there is no part that is glossed over or ignored.
Since the lessons taught are unified throughout the church, the subtle message there is that the parts not covered are either not important or not reliable, while the parts covered are very much deserving of our attention, study, and basing our beliefs on.
I have never really thought of the parts omitted as a "shaky foundation" as much as "not part of the foundation".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have never really thought of the parts omitted as a "shaky foundation" as much as "not part of the foundation".
You know, it takes a lot of brass to claim the authority of the Aaronic priesthood while dismissing the Old Testament as "not part of the foundation." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note I never said that we "dismiss the Old Testament as 'not part of the foundation'". In fact, I specificially said the "omitted parts". I also stated quite clearly that there are aspects of the OT that are crucial to LDS doctrine. Since you know *a lot* about LDS doctrine, this should be well known to you.
It makes me wonder what your point is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just pointing out that saying "This book is the Word of God, except for the parts that this guy says aren't" is in many ways a classic definition of a shaky foundation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's only a shaky foundation if that is the only beam holding the foundation up. It isn't, so it's part of a much firmer foundation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't mind, I'll refrain from elaborating. I completely respect Dana's approach to her faith, but it doesn't work for me and I don't consider it a viable option for a number of reasons. I can't think of any way to elaborate on those reasons, though, that wouldn't come off far more patronizing than I usually seem towards religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perish the thought. If Tom doesn't want to elaborate, I shall not speculate.
That reminds me though . . . I got a copy of the wedding sermon from Cindy, and Tom was right -- she did say that Bob and I getting together was a miracle second only to the resurrection. And she deliberatly said it in a venue where she knew I couldn't argue about it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course she did. In fact, she said in the sermon that she was doing so, whether it's in the written version or not. Where was this arguement that she didn't? I would have been on Tom's side.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom asked at the reception if I agreed with the statement. I remembered it slightly differently -- he was right.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not you believe that the prophets of the LDS church are indeed prophets of God, it seems to me that having a living prophet to tell you what God actually meant in past scripture is the way to go. Otherwise it's my guesswork against your guesswork.
After all, if the God of the Bible exists and God has made His will known to man, He appears to have always done it through prophets.
I don't think many of us here take the entire Bible to be literal. So you *have* to pick and choose what you think things *really* mean.
It seems the only two stable foundations are the above (living prophet to inform) and believing the Bible to be literally, 100% true and perfect.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, except that from an outsider perspective a prophet (at least a prophet as the LDS prophet appears to me) is no better than my guesswork vs. your guesswork. In an outsider's view, you've merely abdicated doing your own guesswork and have replaced that with the guesswork of another that you believe is authoritative. Which can be seen as just a variation on the literalist take (which can also appear to outsiders as abdicating your own guesswork for that written down by people who you feel are authoritative).
Either way it can be seen as replacing an opportunity for faith with someone else's. I think that in some ways not being literalist or believing in a currently living prophet is engaging and Truthful, in a Kierkegaardian sense.
posted
That's assuming that they are just guessing, and that the Spirit does not confirm what they are saying. Both those assumptions are not accurate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sez you. I'll respond at greater length after dinner; unlike comrade TomD, I have no inhibitions about appearing patronising.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spirit, it seems in the general Christian tradition, can be applied equally... The spirit (theoretically) can just as easily move one to be a non-literalist, non-living-prophet-believer... And the only argument that I've understood to differentiate that requires circular reference to the selfsame authoritative scripture/prophet that you are trying to validate.
This is all from an objective standpoint... If the LDS prophet is actually the embodiment of everything that is claimed, then it doesn't matter if the logical argument is circular.
posted
I prefer the term "scholarship" to "guesswork." It isn't a matter of picking and choosing -- I don't throw out any part of the Bible. It is a matter of considering context, author's intent, genre, etc., and figuring out where each fits in to a consistant, coherent, picture. Weighing also tradition, reason and experience. (Experience, in this paradigm, includes experience of God, or what I believe the LDS would call personal revelation.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, I already said that whether or not you believe someone I say is a prophet, having someone who actually is makes sense. For the hypothetical, assume that you *know* he is an actual prophet of God.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I prefer the term "scholarship" to "guesswork."
OK.
quote:It is a matter of considering context, author's intent, genre, etc., and figuring out where each fits in to a consistant, coherent, picture. Weighing also tradition, reason and experience. (Experience, in this paradigm, includes experience of God, or what I believe the LDS would call personal revelation.)
But it is clear that using these methods, different people will come to vastly different conclusions. Having a mouthpiece for God, helps to unify varying points of view.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, absolutely. I've set up rest stops along the road with lemonade.
I'm trying to be discreet - it could have been a generic "you." It fits in the discussion. I'll add a line to tie it in a little better.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think kat should have changed her mind by now or do you think that she should refrain from mentioning it?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, absolutely. I've set up rest stops along the road with lemonade.
I'm trying to be discreet - it could have been a generic "you." It fits in the discussion. I'll add a line to tie it in a little better.
But Kat, Tom has specifically stated in the past that he has done this and not had the same spiritual experience as you. So suggesting it seems to be accusing him of dishonesty.
It's a personal thing to me because I also have sought revelation, and am still waiting on it, but have been jumped on by Christian Hatrackers in the meantime who find me insincere.
posted
If Tom asks me to stop, then I will. He, however, has said that he doesn't mind.
I don't think he's insincere, hasn't tried, or any of that. I do think that the Lord answers prayers in his own sweet time (Isaiah 49:8), and I don't know why, but the answer is always worth another shot. Don't assign me motives you suspect in other people.
So much for discreet. >_<
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm just getting really annoyed by the way you treat my opinion as if it doesn't matter, and that I, consequently, don't matter.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Inside jokes aren't so funny to those on the outside I guess...
