quote:I'm comfortable not identifying the peak as Mormonism.
This may be quibbling a bit, but if the peak is not Mormonism, surely you believe that the Mormon Trail (the metaphorical one, not the real one) is the only one that gets you there and all of these other paths must at some point connect to it in order to reach the summit. Anything else would seem to go against all of that "one true church" stuff.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: The last person in the world I'd trust is a religious law student trying to convince me the notions of proof we use to send people to prison is NOT sufficient to prove the existence of god. If such proof could be produced, which of course it couldn't.
El JT, I can't blame you for your rash judgments of me. I'd only urge you to see what you can learn from getting to know me better and see if your opinions change.
That part was a joke. Of course, the part after it made it appear as though it was serious. So, that one's on me. Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, again not even Catholic belief that Catholicism - or even Christianity - is the only way to get there though theologically why that is gets a tad complicated.
quote:I'm comfortable not identifying the peak as Mormonism.
This may be quibbling a bit, but if the peak is not Mormonism, surely you believe that the Mormon Trail (the metaphorical one, not the real one) is the only one that gets you there and all of these other paths must at some point connect to it in order to reach the summit. Anything else would seem to go against all of that "one true church" stuff.
We do believe that we have all of the ordinances necessary to return to God again, as well as the proper authority to perform those ordinances. We believe we have been given the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In that way, yes, the way to the peak has to be through Mormonism (through what the church offers as far as ordinances, insofar as the authority to perform them only resides in this church). However, we don't believe that we are the only ones with the truth and the mechanisms to find it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The evidence that God revealed Himself through a particular doctrine - that's probably where we disagree.
Assuming both of you understand your religions appropriately, that's definitely where you disagree. And it's not the only terminal disconnect that hammers the paths-up-the-mountain analogy to death. There are myriad points of mutually exclusive contradiction in your faiths where the other's faith must necessarily be wrong about what they consider to be absolute fact. In order for both of your paths to be aligned to the same peak, one or both of your religions has to be horribly, horribly wrong. Neither of your religions is going to think it is them.
While I'm sure one or both of you might try to creatively work around this fact, there's no getting around it. You are not looking at the same 'paths' or the same 'peak.' You are two religions that consider themselves the best mechanism and interpretation of a deity and their will.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we've all known a few people, religious or otherwise, who were just loving, good, virtuous, etc....basically, a "good person" by most generic definitions of the word. The kind of person who is open-hearted, and makes everyone around them feel loved and accepted. The kind of person people enjoy being around, because they don't make people feel judged or hated.
In my experience, you can find these people in every religion, from Buddhist to Hindu to Muslim, Christian, etc..
Funny how you don't see a lot of those people trying to bash other religions or belief systems.
Here's a good story, stolen from Tolstoy:
"An Orthodox bishop is on an inspection tour of his diocese. He hears of three pious monks living on an island in a lake and takes a boat to visit them. The monks turn out to have no knowledge at all of Scripture and doctrine. Patiently the bishop seeks to teach them, but finally he has to settle only for teaching them the Lord’s Prayer; they are too simple to learn anything more.
The bishop departs with some doubt over the genuineness of their faith. As his boat leaves the island for the mainland, in the distance he sees three figures moving towards him. As they come closer he sees that they are the three monks from the island, running across the water to catch him.
The monks climb into the boat and admit that they have already forgotten the Lord’s Prayer. The bishop falls on his face before them and says that they are holier men than he is, for they truly are in God. They need not concern themselves with such matters as creeds and doctrines, for they already know God directly.
The three monks return to their island, still running on the water, and the bishop goes his way, realizing that to be in God is more than any intellectual understanding of Him."
I like the fact that you could substitute almost any religion in the story, with few changes, and it would still work.
quote: Funny how you don't see a lot of those people trying to bash other religions or belief systems.
There may be a bit of selection bias in here, mind. For one thing, it's highly possible that you would exclude someone who bashes other belief systems from your mental category of "open-minded," even if in every other way he was a very open-minded person.
That said, it's certainly true that one can be a good person regardless of faith (if any), and moreover that it's more important to be a good person than to adhere to a specific faith. But, hey, the humanists aren't paying me to make the case for them, so I won't. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Funny how you don't see a lot of those people trying to bash other religions or belief systems.
There may be a bit of selection bias in here, mind. For one thing, it's highly possible that you would exclude someone who bashes other belief systems from your mental category of "open-minded," even if in every other way he was a very open-minded person.
That said, it's certainly true that one can be a good person regardless of faith (if any), and moreover that it's more important to be a good person than to adhere to a specific faith. But, hey, the humanists aren't paying me to make the case for them, so I won't.
Actually, I'm not exactly saying that I think the essential quality I'm pointing at IS open-mindedness. Generally, making people NOT feel judged goes along with open-mindednes, but I'm really also pointing out simplicity and humility as parts of this unnamed virtue.
"The tao that can be named is not the tao..."
It's unnamed for a reason. Heh.
This reminds me of a passage from C.S. Lewis (heavily paraphrased) where he says that the most virtuous/Godly/etc. people, the ones that really get what spiritual lessons are about, usually don't talk about virtue/God/spirituality a lot. If pressed, they tend to put things very simply.
"It has no name. If forced to give it a name, I call it the Tao..."
Parts of the Bible are really quite Taoist, like Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.
I submit that anyone who gets freaked out by me pointing out THAT similarity is not exactly displaying the virtue I'm indirectly pointing out.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Armoth: The evidence that God revealed Himself through a particular doctrine - that's probably where we disagree. [/QUOTE/]
While I'm sure one or both of you might try to creatively work around this fact, there's no getting around it. You are not looking at the same 'paths' or the same 'peak.' You are two religions that consider themselves the best mechanism and interpretation of a deity and their will.
Seems like you just discounted everything I said. Okidoke.
Nope. Not being creative. Just saying it like it is. Not sure BB or Mormons see things the way I do AFR seems to be clear on that point, but definitely the Judaism I subscribe to sees it that way. And there is no denying that all Jews do not seek to convert and that many Jewish sources describe how people can fulfill their purpose through the following of the 7 Noahide commandments.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Seems like you just discounted everything I said. Okidoke.
No. You need to re-read my post. Your response isn't particularly relevant to it.
I've reread. You are smarter than I am. Would you be so kind as to point out the part I am getting wrong?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"the Judaism [you] subscribe to" does not have a shared peak with mormonism. Nothing about conversion practices or the noahide laws is a relevant counterpoint to that, nor does it present a case that the analogy works.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how this peak metaphor is meant to cash out.
For example, what can you say to a Christian who says there is a cross, and only a cross, at the top of the peak?
I can only think of three responses.
1) You are mistaken. There is more than just a cross at the peak. 2) You are presumptuous. How could you know what is at the peak? 3) Your perspective is limited. You may only see a cross, but others see what their tradition teaches them to see.
However, all three responses fail. Our hypothetical Christian can respond as follows:
1) There is only-a-cross at the peak. The cross I believe in is only-a-cross; If you claim there is a-cross-plus-others, then we are not speaking about the same cross. In other words, the cross is exclusive by definition. One of us is wrong; there cannot both be only-a-cross and a-cross-plus-others. 2) Your skepticism leaves the door open for me to be correct; it is not actually a argument against a cross-only peak. 3) You are using irrational mystery to cover over a contradiction. My God is a rational mystery, free of true contradiction.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In general I find it much easier to get along with people with similar political and religious (or lack thereof) belief as there seems to be a correlation in my social circles between being areligious/nonreligious and politically left leaning; people who are politically left leaning as such tend to be easier to get along with as there are many people who are politically right leaning that I've met on IRC and the like whose views are reprehensible.
A correlalery (sp?) to this being that left wing people can also have reprehensible views or otherwise be complete assholes but at least they aren't saying the only reason blacks vote democrat is because they are all on welfare or that white phosphorous should be used on OWS protesters. (This actually happened)
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "the Judaism [you] subscribe to" does not have a shared peak with mormonism. Nothing about conversion practices or the noahide laws is a relevant counterpoint to that, nor does it present a case that the analogy works.
That's BB's problem. The Mormonism that he subscribes to can share a peak with the Judaism that I subscribe to.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
