posted
Bob: For the new covenant, he didn't mean to go against everything that had been said before. It means we are held to a higher standard, not a different one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never liked the parent/child analogy with God. The biggest reason is that a parent NEVER makes the child guess, pray, infer, or believe that they are loved or exist.
Parents are invested in a very Physical way with children. For all the arguments that God is invested in us (AND I BELIEVE HE IS), there is still room for a majority of the world to doubt hi nature, his investment in us, his love, or even his existance. Our relationship with God is based an a qualitatively different faith then the faith we have in our parents.
Just wanted to point that out.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:beverly, to take the analogy further...as your children age and become more aware of their surroundings and demonstrate their ability to comprehend things, a good parent changes the lessons & the type of control
But earthly parents are still just human. We trust them to make their decisions because we have to struggle through with our own decisions without knowing all. God on the other hand, does know all. He may see something 20 years in our future, that we don't. And, unlike us, he isn't sitting around agonizing over what's going to be considered sin and what isn't and who is going to be judged and who is going where and all that - he knows.
The analogy to an earthly set of parents isn't close enough. There is no analogy to God, because we don't have and can't even comprehend the amount of knowledge he has.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa, I do not know if you are LDS or not, or how familiar you are with LDS doctrine, but there is a reason for many of those differences.
LDS doctrine says that we started out living in heaven with God as His children, being raised by our Heavenly Parents. Our life here on earth is brief in comparison, a crucial mortal test. For reasons I don't fully understand, in this life it is crucial that we learn faith and trust in a God that we cannot physically sense and have no memory of being in his presence.
We willingly gave up living in heaven for a brief time, putting incredible stake on our mortal lives, for the incredible opportunitiy of becoming like God. LDS doctrine basically views this life as a sort of "coming of age" trial for Godhood.
But since He is our loving Father, the analogy still is very useful. The scope is just on a far grander scale than that of me and my kids.
that Scripture is Scripture, but men interpret it and make the rules?
I mean, I really see a misogynistic tradition in the Catholic church. I don't know enough about LDS to say whether I think the same of your church or not. But any church that makes a gender distinction in worship is, I think, relegating at least 1/2 of its members to 2nd class status.
Sounds to me like something men would do, not God.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I believe both homesexual and polygamous families should be given the same legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.
I have seen the legal hurdles my gay friends have jumped through to share custody of their children, share a last name, take care of each other in a medical emergency...all with the knowledge that it may mean nothing.They have to pay lawyer's fees and produce documentation for rights my hubby and I have as a matter of course. I am personally thrilled that is starting to change.
edited for spelling errors that occurred while nursing a little person who, I have just discovered, has peed all over me.
posted
[This started out focused, but then rambled; fire away! ]
beverly, I think that the parent/child analogy only works if you think that God is still working in that way.
I've been thinking on it (I think I am very close to Bob, theologically speaking; at least nothing he has said when talking about such things has struck me as false, and not just on this thread), and I think that, with Jesus, we AREN'T children any more, or aren't supposed to act in the same manner. Jesus expects from us, in my mind.
Children, quite frequently, act like many of the "bad guys" in Jesus' parables do. They follow the letter of the law quite blindly, to the point where it doesn't make sense (the Good Samaritan parable comes to mind as an example). Jesus, not exactly a stickler for the law (at least as interpreted by the leaders of the day), preached that through your faith you will do (even be) good, not that through your obedience you will be faithful. There are exceptions to rules, and they can't possibly be spelled out in a concise readable format.
If, by following a rule you are harming someone, it likely means you aren't following the Rule, IMO.
We can argue that gay marriage will have negative pragmatic (that is, non-metaphysical) repurcussions (Amka and Jenny Gardener and Geoff, and others certainly have). Others can argue that there will be positive repurcaussions (Storm Saxon, TomD, and others). So long as we slavish follow the rules (and essentially semantic rules at that, since there is no edict that says a word can only have one definition, and there are many words that have multiple definitions), however, we do pragmatically harm others. We should be better than the men in the parable who ignored their fallen brother, because it would technically make them unclean for the temple. We should both help them, and be clean.
We can both provide civil marriages to gays, with all the legal value it conveys, whilst still practicing our form as our God commands (and by extension continue to promote our form of marriage as the preferred, for the various theological reasons). ---
Of course, I have an inability to fathom why some people can't separate civil marriage from the larger (and heterogeneous) religious one. We use the same word because it is convenient, IMO, not because we wish to confer some of the connotations of one definition to the other.
posted
Legalizing polygamy creates tax law problems that I believe are insurmountable.
Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't.
Given that one of these things is legally unworkable, but the other is not, I don't think the analogy is valid.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang! I'm getting beat up for someone else's analogy!!!
Foul! Ref, I want a free throw!
kat, I never said that Jesus tossed out anything. In fact I said that we have MORE to be concerned with.
With greater understanding comes greater responsibility.
And I'm sorry, I'm not a toddler. If I can understand something, I can decide whether it applies or not. And if God wants me to understand it differently, He's got plenty of ways to explain it to me.
And, I include among those ways the discussions here at Hatrack.
Is that wrong?
How else would a loving God have me behave?
Heck, let those who can obey blindly do so. I'm not stopping anyone. I admire the ability to do that and wish I didn't have to puzzle it all out before I believe.
But I'm not wired that way and I show no signs of changing, you know...
So God knows how to reach me. I'm not closed to learning new lessons. I know I'm not perfect and that my plans aren't necessarily HIS plans. It's not like I'm thumbing my nose at God by saying I prefer to understand his orders before I obey.
And maybe I'll fall shy of Heaven being this way. But I actually think that after death we come to understand a great many more things than we do now. And I look forward to that. I'm not afraid of it... I want it.
If one of the things I come to understand is that blind obedience would've been the right course to follow, I guess I'll have some really tense moments there.
But I doubt it'll be like that.
Why would God explain it all to us and then say "Gotcha!"
Seems arbitrary and capricious, and that's not the God I would want to worship either.
So, you see, if I was obeying without understanding, I'd be a grumbling malcontent in my heart anyway and lose my shot at Heaven just as certainly.
I figure hypocrisy is worse than doubt.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how it's POSSIBLE to remain complicit in what feels like an injustice without understanding. There's clearly some step I'm missing, here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, you make an excellent point. I guess my response to that is that God really does want us to grow up. I do think that we are very much like toddlers, or perhaps young children (more like age 4 or a bit older--but 4 is the age of my oldest child, so that is the age I relate to).
I think there are definitely cases when God says to us, "Because I am God," and expects us to follow out of faith. We do need to work to understand His reasons, though, because in the end that is what He wants. He wants us to be like Him. We all go through "growing pains" and we hopefully don't act like bratty or rebellious teenagers. But if we truly grow up, then we will be ready to understand God's reasons, and He will joyfully open our minds with them.
LDS scripture tells the story of a young man who approached God in such great faith that God could hold nothing back from him and showed him EVERYTHING, and I do mean everything. To the extent that the things he wrote are not available to us because we are not ready for them.
Eh, I am rambling. I don't know if this addresses your thoughts very well, let me know if it doesn't.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand. It's even scarier to think that these people are perhaps in the MAJORITY.
So I'll go back to thinking that people rationalize their faith, because it makes me happier than being consciously aware of mass sociopathy....*shudder*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand. It's even scarier to think that these people are perhaps in the MAJORITY.
And...yeah. That's why you don't hear it very often. Because it is not often well-recieved.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, my sense of right and wrong is flawed. I'm a human person, and I have a fallen, sinful nature.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, for what it's worth, I believe God loves you and understands you and He is exceedingly patient. Who are we to judge?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand.
Amen. I will not sleep soundly tonight.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want a good example of how a person's sense of right and wrong can be messed up, head on over to sndrake's spare change rant thread. People who think they are acting out of love can cause pain. I'm not even talking about intentionally causing pain to avoid greater pain, like in giving a child a shot. I'm talking about people doing something hurtful with no offsetting value.
I know that wasn't his intent in posting that, but it was a clear example to me.
posted
Celia and Tom, for what it's worth, I believe that those deep down feelings of right and wrong can be a very important guide to us in how we interpret God's commands. But as has been pointed out, those feelings can get mixed up, especially when we don't have a full understanding of things.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand.
But you’re ignoring that people who think this way have two premises that mean they are not really “ignoring their own sense of right and wrong:”
1.) My in-born sense of right and wrong is in someway misaligned, even when I apply my powers of reason to it to the best of my ability.
2.) I have decided to trust the statements of certain authorities to help provide guidance to my sense of right and wrong.
In other words, they’re not ignoring their sense of right and wrong. They have incorporated these commands into it.
posted
Absolutely not. But at some point in a believer's journey of faith, he or she should approach doctrine with the presumption that it is right and good and seek understanding that way.
posted
yeah. i'm so glad i didn't hit add reply. twinky's said it in a much nicer and more understandable way. Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom, my sense of right and wrong is flawed. I'm a human person, and I have a fallen, sinful nature."
Hm. I might not always be noble enough to do what I think is right, but I think my sense of right and wrong is pretty flawless. Is that hubris?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I am gald you find the God-Parent analogy useful. I don't. I am well versed in LDS scripture, doctrine, theology, and culture. I am also a temple holding memeber who reads the scriptures every night with my spouse, grew up in Utah, attended BYU, and hold Family Home Evening.
I am also someone who doubts. I believe we should not put our faith in the arm of the flesh. I include living prophets as the arm of flesh. Inspired, but flesh.
The reason Jesus told us doubting was wrong is not because (IMHO) doubting is wrong. But because eternal truth are manifested by the Spirit.
Hence, when Christ said it was better for those who did not feel the resurrected Messiah but still believed. He was not talking about blind obedience or faith. He was talking about having the spirit of prophecy (Holy Ghost) with you as a more sure testimony.
I have left the church, studied church history, went the ways of the world, came back to the social organization that spreads the gosple and has authority for ordinances, and am quite happy right now.
I understand the analogy and why there are all of those differences. My point is that IT DOES REQURE FAITH in God. Whatever the the reason the relationship with God is different then our temporal parents, IT IS DIFFERENT.
To require someone to have faith because the prophet spoke seems wrong to me because then we are just believing and not having the testimony of the spirit with us. If we do have the spirit with us, then this is not an issue--unless, like me, sometimes your understanding of the spirit is different then what is being advocated. Hence my delimma and that start of this post.
In the end tho, Satan is the father of lies, so if you are honest with God and yourself, then whatever side of the fence or religion you find yourself on, I believe you have God's blessings (provided you are not taking away the righs of someone else through violating their consent--is rob, rape, murder, lie, cheat, et cetera.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand - what I'm saying makes sense only with regards to people who have resolved a whole lot of issues in a particular way. My explanation was responding to Tom's statement about how people of faith clarify issues of right and wrong.
Dagonee Edit: this was a reply to celia and twinky.
posted
I like how Dag said it. You don't start with a moral understanding of the universe and then figure out what God would want us to do. You start with his laws, and develop your moral understanding from there.
But of course, that doesn't answer everything. Which/Whose laws do you accept? Your own moral sense has to jive with the laws for you to accept them in the first place.
I don't have any magic answers. Thanks for your posts, Tom. I believe we will all be blesses as we try to live what we understand and try to understand the truth better.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, you misunderstand a bit. I think God made me this way.
So, I'm being obedient by asking for explanations and proof.
I'm using the gift of intelligence that He gave me.
It's not like I'm in open defiance or anything. I just want to understand first, then act. If I'm responsible for the action, I want to know what I'm getting myself into. Or what God is getting me into.
So please...the (((Bob))) stuff isn't necessary. It's not like I can make myself change.
And I have tried the surrender bit. Really tried it. It lasts a few months at most and then I really do start rebelling.
I've learned to surrender in some areas, though. I think my close friends can see it. But you know, it's because of trust in those areas. I think God has all of our best interests at heart.
Think on this, though. I have known many Christians who believe things about what God wants them to do. And often they are very wonderful and useful things. And sometimes they are just plain wrong things. But the belief that God "wants this of me" is always strong and true.
IMHO, these people could do with a good dose of skepticism. Maybe not to be skeptical of God, but to be distrustful of their own secret desires.
And that's the biggest barrier to "surrender" for me. That I couldn't trust myself under those circumstances to secretly push the "calling" in ways that only I really intended.
I don't know that I could tell the difference between a good thing that I'd convinced myself of, versus one that God was putting forward as part of His plan.
I believe that maybe both are going on.
And I feel it is important to examine EVERYTHING and be as sure as I can be.
I think that's not doubting. I think that's the responsibility of a faithful person.
Am I wrong? ... again?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:IMHO, these people could do with a good dose of skepticism. Maybe not to be skeptical of God, but to be distrustful of their own secret desires.
And that's the biggest barrier to "surrender" for me. That I couldn't trust myself under those circumstances to secretly push the "calling" in ways that only I really intended.
I think this is the crux of the matter right here. Unfortunately, our rational sense of right and wrong can mislead us just as easily. Our human nature has got us coming and going...
That's why I've likened morality to a tightrope. Every good has a corresponding evil. What's worse, every evil has an opposite evil that can be just as bad.
posted
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo Galilei
That's where testimony comes in... you know what you know. Do you have a testimony of the scriptures? I mean, do you trust the source? If you have felt before, and have a testimony from before of the source, and then you learn something that is incompatible with something you feel is your nature, one of the two has to give. If you don't know which one, pray your guts out for understanding.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I truly, truly believe that God intends everyone to have faith, but that he knows us each individually, and the exact same path is not required of everyone.
Ultimately, we recieve what we truly desire. I really believe that.
Added: That sounds SO condescending. I don't mean it to. I'd like to point out that I don't have everything I want.
posted
It's going to have to be some curve to include us students who've never managed to pick up the pen.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: To require someone to have faith because the prophet spoke seems wrong to me because then we are just believing and not having the testimony of the spirit with us. If we do have the spirit with us, then this is not an issue--unless, like me, sometimes your understanding of the spirit is different then what is being advocated. Hence my delimma and that start of this post.
Alexa, I think few of us here would require anyone to have faith in our church leaders just because they say something, and I think I don't have to tell you that. Having the Spirit of Discernment with us is very important.
I do not want to just give this lipservice, I have pondered many things concerning my faith. I consider myself an intellectual, and for awhile I began to wonder if intellectuals could even really have faith. I began to wonder if my God-given intellect were sinful!
That is one of the reasons I feel a deep love for OSC, he has been so key to me in helping me realize that you can be an intellectual and have a strong testimony in God, Christ, LDS doctrine, etc.
To everyone: I strive to understand God's reasons for things. When I say that sometimes the answer is, "Because I am God" and my response is "OK, I don't like it but I will trust you," examples that come to mind are things like forgiving someone who has hurt me or accepting the death of a loved one (or, "You need to stop spending so much time on Hatrack and attend RL"). These are issues where I already know what is right, but I can't see the big picture and it is easy for me to feel rebellion creeping into my heart.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"You need to stop spending so much time on Hatrack and attend RL").
This is not the statement of a loving God. You can safely ignore it as clearly originating from the Devil...or that deprogrammer your parents hired.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that's the biggest barrier to "surrender" for me. That I couldn't trust myself under those circumstances to secretly push the "calling" in ways that only I really intended.
quote:Yes, Leto, and we are talking about BIGOTED LEGISLATION against polygamy. Your point is totatlly lost on me. The comparisons are the same.
No, they are not, because no firm basis has been given to show how they are the same except that they are both not allowed. Murder is not allowed as well, is that accurately comparable? Stealing is not allowed either, is that equally comparable to homosexual marriage?
According to some arguments I've heard on this forum, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if people here said "yes."
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen people use Leto's exact argument against homosexual marriage instead of polygamous marriage as he did. They were promptly condemned for it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
in my heart anyway and lose my shot at Heaven just as certainly.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
