posted
Dog, you've backpedaled out of your original assertion that it's totally pointless and that there absolutely is no valid reason for religion to continue.
Or maybe you've changed your mind. Either way, you're not arguing the same thing now.
Oh, and Eddie:
quote:I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, my problem lies with the problem of discrimination.
No it doesn't. Your problem lies with the complete lack of desire to understand any belief that you've already written off as silly. Not all religious divines are the same, not all have a yin and yang, not all have a good and bad, and not all have an adversary.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Let's see if I can explain myself without having you accuse me of making excuses or changing my mind.
First off: I chose the title of this thread as a "Dobie" (if you would) of Belle's original thread. Unfortunately, she deleted her thread, and I can no longer remember the title she used (and which I Dobified).
My point (to quote myself, which I don't think I've ever done before):
quote:If this isn't enough to call the objectivity of God into question, then there's just nothing left. Faith becomes blind faith, and unexamined faith.
I can understand this: Two different people ask God the same question (or, to extend it, to pray for the same outcome); God responds (in word or action) in two mutually exclusive ways; and instead of saying "it must be the mystery of God--since God is inherently unknowable," the response is "The fact that we got two mutually exclusive outcomes is itself further proof of the existence of God."
Well, if no matter what happens it all becomes proof for the existence of God, then what's the point?
I claim: Adding water to powdered sugar will cause the creation of 200-foot-tall granite obelisks.
<<Adds water to powdered sugar. Waits. Nothing.>>
See! I was right! Adding water to powdered sugar does cause the creation of 200-foot-tall granite obelisks.
What sort of discussion or debate can you have with a class of people who accept the desired hypothesis, regardless of the real outcome of the investigation? You wouldn't accept it from these "so-called" evolution "scientists," why accept it from the "God Exists" theorists?
Hence the "pointless" reference.
--DOG
P.S. John/Leto: If this is still inadequate for your needs, please tell me just how you feel I've been wishy-washy. Apparently, I've got nothing better to do with my time than to make you comfortable with what I am saying.
[edited for spelling and stuttering, and the wise-ass Post Script]
posted
Your whole problem is (dis)proving the existence of a god. The problem is that not all religions have a single god, and not even all religions that have a single one disregard the gods of other religions.
Your problem is with Christianity, not religion. That's okay, though—most atheists go through some time hating Christianity for various reasons. It's created the most atheists of all time.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eddie, you're biggest problem is your Christian-based view of religion as well. There's a reason you find your view so similar to DOG's in this case, and it isn't because I'm not calling it right.
And Kat, Christianity had an 1800 years head start. Marx is nowhere near the number Christianity is at. The Renaissance alone surpasses Marx.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a difficult question to answer because it is made up of different elements that differ from person to person.
One reason, you like what that "god" or "prophet" teaches. It appeals to something deep inside you. And since poeple are not all the same, you get a lot of different religions. Since most of us theists readily agree that we can't prove or disprove the existance or nature of God, having faith is always going to be somewhat nebulous in nature. Some are willing to trust, some aren't.
I suppose you could start a "Church of Eddie". See how many followers you get.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, you're not taking into account the expotential growth of world population. The most populous nation on earth is officially atheist.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, so you're going by the government? Then gee, why aren't America, Britain, and other "technically" Christian countries all Christian? Seriously, Kat, that's horribly flawed logic. The most common faith in China is not "atheist." I dare you to prove that.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want to add Europe to the atheist list? Thousands of years of Christianity didn't create them, but secularism did. Point of origin does not prove causation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not read the documents of the most influential atheist thinkers? All from Christian origins, Kat. The origin does indicate causality.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, my first response was to giggle, but...yeah. Probably. Especially if it was a change, there are probably several reasons for any belief system.
On the other hand, I'll bet a lot of different people changed for the same reason, so it works out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I like Jasper Fforde's "Generic Standard Deity." It's like being Unitarian, only with better curse words and more sex.
Back in the day, I thought about a Church of Tom -- just coming up with a list of things I thought would be good for society and letting people sign on if they liked the idea. I gave up when I realized that "do this because I really, really want you to" wasn't much of a motivator.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else he was a madman or something worse." [Mere Christianity]
I couldn't find the similar quote from "The Problem of Pain."
Either way, I think you'll all recognize this as "the fallacy of the excluded middle."
BTW, I still like "The Screwtape Letters"! Maybe it's just because John Cleese reads it!
quote:And why not read the works of some of the most influential Chritian thinkers? After all, C.S. Lewis started out as an atheist.
Wrong-o, boy blunder. He spent some time as an atheist when the religion he had failed under his self-questioning.
And while he's fine for apologetics, there are plenty of Christian groups who say he doesn't speak for them at all.
And that quote does jack and squat to show that you are not mostly Christian-centric in your outlook on religion.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No doubt Christianity is my biggest influence regarding my religious paradigm -- does that invalidate my questions or opinions? I don't understand what you're trying to get at.
That it's not religion you have a problem with. It's Christianity. So stop trying to make your case against "religion," when every argument is against Christian ideals.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, I'm really not trying to be anatagonistic here, but I don't really think that you've answered my question. I know that I still don't see what non-excluding purpose OTC thinking serves.
From what I'm getting, you're saying that we believe in One True Church because these things are true. For me, OTC'ing isn't about things being true, but rather other things not being true. If you subtract OTC from your beliefs, you still have all te same things you're talking about being true, but you're opening up to the possibility of other things being true as well.
At least, that's how I see it. I find this way of looking at things more palatable, both in terms of a theoretical system and in terms of taking responsibility for the confidence I have in my beliefs. While I may have found some truths I can feel confident in, I've never yet had any logical reason to believe that they are the only truths out there. People have been finding truth for as long as they've been people, and the vast majority of these truths have been different from mine. Not only do I think that it's more logical to accept that these people may have not all been deluding themselves, but I find that I learn a lot more from them if I approach them with an open and eager mind, instead of starting from the assumption that they are necessarily wrong.
edit: I really do think that it might be an interesting exercise to, in theory, delete the One True Church assumption from your religious beliefs and see what changes would result from this.
posted
Is it me, or does John L seem to currently exist only to tear down others when they fail to meet his apparently undisclosed agenda for truth or accuracy in debate and discussion? I have also noted a peculiar lack of opinion on his part, except when he says, "You're wrong," or, "You're an idiot," or "Your problem is..."
quote:As many people who have read the life story of C.S. Lewis realize, at one time he was an atheist. However, for the most part, that is all that anyone knows. In most cases, there is an unavoidable absence of material. He goes from an atheist in 1915 to a Christian in 1931 ...
That's by a gentlemen out of Stanford. That's a reasonable enough data point for me.
And as for me being mostly "Christian-centric" in my outlook, fine. So I am. Once I've made my point in the Christian world, I'll move on to the other religions. And the only reason I brought up Lewis was because you had stated, "Why not read the documents of the most influential atheist thinkers? All from Christian origins." I figured a little tit-for-tat was in order. It was a pun! No, wait--what's that thing that's the same backwards as forwards? Ah, yes: a Palindrome!
Oh, wait--I forgot! I'm sorry. Ever since that traumatic incident, supposedly involving twins and an exploding can of Jalapeno cheez-whiz, you've lost your sense of humor! BTW, it's too late to get it back from that guy in my basement. He's made it into a hat, and refuses to give it up.
(here, watch: get ready for another humorless, insulting come-back from our former friend, Leto II...)
--DOG
[edited to add one last snarky comment at the close of the first paragraph]
posted
Squicky, interesting points. I will attempt to address them and hope that my brain is still working this late at night.
I believe that when the teachings of religions contradict, they can't both be right. It is illogical. And if they didn't contradict, would there be anything barring them from being the same religion? It seems that much of Protestant Christianity is trying to create this illusion of unity, but I don't buy it. They still teach some very different things. They can agree on some points, like the Bible being scripture and Christ being the Savior, for example. But they have some (IMO) irreconcilable differences.
Some people believe that all or most religions are correct. Some believe that all religions are the product of man, whether with good intentions or genuinely following divine inspiration. I think the second is true for all churches but the OTC. Because the other churches are full of people with good intentions trying their best to follow divine inspiration (which I believe exists and comes from one source), most contain goodness and truth. But I believe that those true doctrines are mixed with human error. Sometimes that error is harmful whether the teachers of it intended it so or not, because it is misleading.
I propose that God wishes there to be a church on the earth, OTC. Many don't see a need for that, but I do. How else are you going to avoid human error altering the interpretation of doctrine? There must be a prophet. There must be revelation. There must be the correction of error coming from God Himself through His servant. Not to say that the OTC would be perfect, indeed it would be chock full of human error because it is full of humans. But the members would try their best to follow the corrections from their prophets.
Even though the prophet and twelve apostles leading the church are human and imperfect, they are good men, chosen by God, who are humble, full of love, and seek to follow Him. I believe God really does speak to them. This really is crucial to my belief in the OTC. And in order for this to work, the members of that church must place a great deal of trust in their prophets.
This frightens many people, that we put so much trust in human beings to tell us God's will for us. But, hey, that's what all scripture is. It shouldn't seem too unfamiliar. And just as we can "test" the words of the scriptures, we can "test" the words of living prophets. Pray about it. Seek wisdom directly from God, for we believe He also communicates with each individual. Without personal revelation, there would be no way to know what is from God and what isn't. NO WAY.
I understand that many believe that personal revelation is nothing more than delusions of the mind. It is true that many (including myself) have thought they received personal revelation and it really was just them thinking what they wanted to believe.
As for myself, one of the ways I descern if something is from God is that it effects both my mind and heart in an edifying, ennobling way. There are many things that effect me emotionally that have nothing to do with the spirit. There are many things that appeal to my mind that I believe are not of God at all. But there are those moments that both are touched.
Are these promptings clear? Often not. They are just promptings, urgings in a certain direction. More than that would remove the need for faith (something that my religious beliefs say is crucial to learn.) For the clear instructions, we need prophets. The promptings are just enough to help us build our faith. First we trust, then we act on it. If the result is good, our faith is strengthened. It is like planting seeds, nurturing them, and seeing what they will grow up to be. It requires an initial "downpayment" of trust. That is what I believe God requires of us. Those who cannot or will not make that first steps will remain athiests (in this life.)
I do believe that some see angels, see visions, hear voices, dream dreams that are from God, not prophets, but people to whom God chooses to send these things. But such visions will impart information for that person, not for the church as a whole. We believe that God will use His line-of-authority for that.
I also believe that "seeing an angel" will not make someone act with faith after such a vision. In fact, if they were not able to act on faith before such a vision, after such a vision they are even less likely to act on faith. IMO, that's why God doesn't do it much. I will explain this in another post if you wish, this one is too long already.
Blah. Too much rambling. That's what I get for trying to write this past my bedtime. I have no clue if that did anything to answer your question.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I do have one question: why must people "learn to have faith"? How is that statement different from "learn not to require proof regarding what to believe"?
It means to accept something that comes from a "higher" human authority, without questioning; or to accept something which you feel inside (whether coming from your own mind, or from God) without any deep questioning or demands of validity--except for your "makes me feel enobled" reference (in other words, "it just feels right to me").
I hope I have not come off as in any way insulting in the above statements; that was certainly not my intent.
Now it is my intent to become insulting:
Thank you John L. At least now I've been proven right in one thing I've posted in this thread.
Check me here, people: still no real content from the mysterious John L? Am I right?
C.S. Lewsis became an atheist. He was Christian as a child, became an atheist, then was a Christian again. So saying he "started" as an atheist is flat out wrong. Read Surprised by Joy.
quote:It means to accept something that comes from a "higher" human authority, without questioning; or to accept something which you feel inside (whether coming from your own mind, or from God) without any deep questioning or demands of validity--except for your "makes me feel enobled" reference (in other words, "it just feels right to me").
Blind faith does not equal faith. Faith is knolwedge of something that isn't necessarily tangiable (like saying I have faith in your soccor skills would count as faith).
posted
One of my biggest beefs with Christianity is that in order to have faith in a Savior, I first need to have faith that there are unseen eternal consequences for my sins that extend beyond the grave.
I need to have faith to be damned in order to have faith to be saved. It doesn't make sense to me yet.
Consequently, I have a very low level of "guilty" feelings for a Christian. I feel comfy paying for my own sins. That being said, I find the example of love shown by Christ and traditional bible stories to be very life affirming--except the whole Abraham-and-son incident and Nephi beheading Laban.
For all my antiism you will read throughout these posts, I find religion useful to me.
posted
But Hobbes, have you seen my soccer skills? I suck.
Your faith in my soccer skills either means that 1) you see something there (tangible proof, if you would) that I am better than I think I am--or that I can be better, or 2) you're just lying to me to make me feel--and perhaps play--better, because there is nothing to indicate that I have any soccer skills at all.
Dag,
You may very well be right. The references that I was able to find (not having read Surprised) indicated that although he was born to a Christian family, his first "recorded" thoughts were those of an atheist. Certainly, by the time he was 15, he was an atheist, and went on from there.
posted
Dog, soccor skills was an example, as you've pointed out I have no clue what your soccor skills are, and so no, I don't have faith in them. However, if I've seen you play and you looked like you were good, then I'd have at least a little faith in your soccor skills, right?
quote:tangible proof
I think watching you play soccor and thinking you are good because of it results from nothing tangible or provable.
posted
DOG, that is a very good question, one I have also asked myself many times. Because this whole idea is very much based on the idea that "faith is necessary". For any semblance of answer, I have to reach to my theology's doctrine of life before earth. I think that is relevant because the idea here is that each one of us before birth had a perfect knowledge of God, for we lived with Him and interacted with Him as His spirit children. We were probably with Him an extremely long time, but the length of time is not known. I believe that we had progressed as far as we could in that state, but still were far from being like God. God presented to us a plan in which we would come to live on a world He had created for us to be tested and to learn to become more then we then were.
First, God was more than just a spirit, He had a body and a spirit joined together. The body of which I speak bears resemblance to our mortal bodies (we were created in His image) but is perfect and glorified and we don't completely understand what that means at this time. So one reason to come to earth was to receive a mortal body, the first necessary step to one day having a body like His. This body would allow us certain abilities to act on our surroundings that we didn't have before. This body would have powers and sensations that we had never experienced before. It would provide us an opportunity to learn in ways we never could before.
Now some of the aspects of this "mortal body" did not exist in Adam and Eve before partaking of the fruit and did not come into play until after "the Fall". And as Alexa has pointed out, we believe that without faith in "the Fall", the consequences of sin and it's implications, it is very difficult to believe in the necessity of a Savior.
A post-fall body was subject to all sorts of imperfect health and is not capable of living forever. A post-fall body has an animal-aspect, the need to survive, even at the cost of others. A post-fall body has sexual desires to deal with. (I do not know if a pre-fall body had these desires, it may have, but I am thinking not.) I believe that dealing with those desires is a particularly important part of our mortal test. (Subject for another post.)
So here we are with no memory of what we were before our birth. The idea is to see what sort of life we will live under these circumstances. Our only knowledge of God comes from faith rather than knowledge, because 1) it has already been shown what we will do with that knowledge without a body 2) with a post-fall body, it is pretty much a given that we are going to sin. The idea is that it is much, much less serious for us to do wrong without a sure knowledge of God and truth than for us to sin without that sure evidence. I believe that one of the reasons we can't prove God's existance is because He has made certain that we can't. Such proof would damage the purpose of our mortal life.
So, God has given us all a conscience. We know if we are living according to it. We are judged according to the knowledge that we have. If we "know" inside that killing is wrong (as most humans do) then we will be judged more harshly for killing. But since our doctrine states that no man can return to God in ignorance, all must be taught truth whether in this life or after death. (Thus the belief in missionary work going on amongst the dead.) What happens to those who can't accpet things on faith? (For there are many.) I don't know. Perhaps they will be given evidence little by little over time to see what their "faith" threshold is. How much "proof" is required to believe something is true? For some it might take the reality of an afterlife to even begin to consider these things.
Why is faith so important? I still don't completely understand that. But from what I have read and experienced, faith is a sort of power. If I might use an innacurate and weak analogy, why was Neo "The One" in the Matrix? Why did he have so much power? He had amazing faith, or so we are lead to believe. He had the presence of mind to view the illusion around him and "see through it". In the world of the Matrix, if you had enough "faith", you could, to the extent that you had that faith, bend the world around you. I think that that sort of faith is an attribute of Godliness and one of the things we came here to learn. Having faith to trust the words of God is just a small part of that. And I believe that learning of faith will continue after this life.
Our scripture contains a story about a man who approached God with such faith that God could not keep him "within the veil". In other words, he "saw" everything. He saw God, His acts and purposes throughout time. He saw every human that has ever lived or ever would live on earth. All this because of his faith. We have another scriptural account of a man in whom God trusted so much to only use power for good, or God's purposes. (God's only purpose is the benefit of His children and creations). God told him that anything He asked, anything at all, would be granted, because He would only ask for that which was right. These are two examples I can give of the power we believe faith has.
Do I have such faith? Alas, no. I try my best, though, and I believe that that is all that God asks of us.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Maybe I'll get brownie points from John L for responding to a question about the Mormon faith! Or that may still be too Christian-based for him to give me any extra credit. Whatever.
Also, you are stating your belief in the Mormon God, and its tenets, as absolute, or true. For the sake of our continued discussion, I will add "IMHO"s, as appropriate (as I have said you all are certainly allowed to do with my statments of alleged absolutes).
Either way, you seem to be writing from a position of absolute surety that God exists (not only God, but your interpretation of him, as laid out by your church; as you say it, the "One True Church."). Obviously, it's not my place to tell you to "stop it!", and so I won't. But your point of view is certainly skewed by this mindset, just as my point of view is skewed by my interpretation of the presented data (what we both, i believe, have agreed to call "the world").
There! I think that's enough disclaimers!
You claim faith is a sort of power. I will agree. It is a power that enables people to act when the information they have is insufficient to otherwise support those actions.
It's why people marry. Not homosexuals, of course--they're just sick. But normal people. You know--like us.
It's why people go and take new jobs. Except, of course, when they find out that they can't take Passover off without getting in trouble with their boss.
It's why we built the Twin Towers. Not thinking, of course, that a bunch of militant morons would fly a couple of fully-loaded jet airliners into them on an otherwise absolutely beautiful morning (let's see a show of hands--how many here now look at absolutely beautiful mornings just a little differently? I know I do.)
It's also why we go to war. Certainly why we invaded Iraq ("I know those weapons of mass destruction must be here...somewhere!")
And if an abiding faith in God leads people to perform good & kind acts, then how can I oppose that? But when people hide behind the "Love of God," and refere to God as "The Truth" (I'm not refering to you, I'm actually refering to a local letter-to-the-editor that was in our Sunday paper, and absolutely sickened me), and use that Love and Truth to denigrate entire classes of people, to the point where a bunch of high-school kids in Texas saw fit to torture and kill a homosexual classmate, then I say that unquestioning faith (a redundant statement, in my book) needs examination.
In fact, it needs examination anyhow. As does everything that might cause us to act in a negative way towards others (but that's just my "Spiritual Atheism" talking there).
New point:
The other night I was up way too late. You know you're up to late when they start talking about tomorrow's shows as being on "later tonight"! I was up late enough to find Carlton Fiske, and all those other "Make More Money Through Unscrupulous Real Estate and Internet Transactions At Home" paid advertisements.
They all talked about how you could earn tens of thousands of dollars extra every month; how you could retire at 35 with more money than you knew what to do with. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
I will admit my overwhelming ignorance of the Mormon faith. I have never been to a prayer meeting, or a sermon, and have never read the Book of Mormon that I have sitting on my study bookshelf. But...the way you referenced those two examples in your closing paragraph reminded me of those late night infomercials. (Do Mormons have a Hell? If you do, I've just guaranteed myself a seat.) These two men were able to parlay their strong faith into almost personal Godhead. I know those parables have a much wider meaning to you, and to your Church, but I see them as being used as tools by the Church to convince worshippers to increase their level of faith--in fact, to attempt to increase their faith to levels which can never truly be achieved (the ability to manipulate space and time), in an attempt to maintain a strong hold on their adherents. You can see televangelists doing it all the time.
It is a reward for desired behavior. Except it is a reward that the masters (the Pastors, Ministers, Prophets) never have to make good on. The desired behavior is incredibly strong faith in the Church in question.
I'm probably saying all this in an insulting manner, and for that I apologize. I am trying to come to terms with what I see as blatant manipulation by the leaders (Presidents, Pastors, etc.) of their followers, in attempt to gain power and control. Carrots on sticks. Except the stick is very long, and the carrot is so very far away. It's there though--it's a beautful, big carrot; it's just the carrot you've always wanted--but it's so far away that you really can't see it. You're getting closer to it! It's just like this carrot over here, but oh, so much better.
It's peace.
It's prosperity.
It's God.
It's heaven.
It's friendship.
It's a pair of voluptuous twins in skimpy bikinis, playing volleyball on a trampoline in the rain. While eating Jalapeno Cheez-Whiz.
It's the ability to drive over any terrain, in any weather, so you can get your baby to the hospital in time.
It's the ability to earn over $10,000 a month, in your spare time, with only a minimal investment (call now, our operators are standing by).
As an atheist, I can certainly still see some of the nobler aspects of religion. Except that good people don't really need the religious impetus to act nobly. "Not-good" people may very well be swayed by a rousing sermon to perform noble acts. Also good. But I see (again, IMHO) that so much of religion now is control. Gaining and maintaining control. Would you say that there are no aspects of "control" in any of the major, organized religions? Christianity? Mormon? Islam? (Did I spell that right, John L?) Judaism? Buddhism (which has been blamed by some for maintining the caste system in India, for example)? We certainly can criticize suicide cults for this. But what about the mainstream religions?
And back to faith: if you are told that you must believe without proof, and then are told that the more you can believe in this way, the better you are (the closer you can get to God), then you are being conditioned to avoid proof, and seek out faith (feeling). Then, when the need for understanding the scientific (proof-based) aspect of things comes along, you find that you have become dependent on what others ("superiors") are telling you is true, or you accept what you "feel" to be true as true, regardless of any proof to the contrary.
Why do you think GWB is so constantly appealing to people's faith?
posted
Why do we need religion? To me it seems like the institutional aspect of things gets in the way of spirituality. Maybe it's because of my borderline mysticism... But organize religion frustrates me. Anyone can claim to be a prophet and dupe thousands of people into seeing things their way. But it does damage. Damage to individuals and also to people's perception of god...
posted
DOG, I just have a few things to say which probably won't have any effect, but I'll say them anyway.
When you say having faith requires no proof, it's leaving out something important. Yeah, you don't get scientific proof, but that's not to say there's no evidence. Ask any religious person why they believe, and most aren't going to say "because God requires that I have blind faith." They're going to give you answers, reasons for why they think their belief is justified. You're free to dismiss those reasons as non-objective, but it's just a different criteria that you have for evaluating proof than they do.
quote:But when people hide behind the "Love of God," and refere to God as "The Truth" (I'm not refering to you, I'm actually refering to a local letter-to-the-editor that was in our Sunday paper, and absolutely sickened me), and use that Love and Truth to denigrate entire classes of people, to the point where a bunch of high-school kids in Texas saw fit to torture and kill a homosexual classmate, then I say that unquestioning faith (a redundant statement, in my book) needs examination.
Yes, of course it needs examination, are you trying to imply that all religious people approve of that sort of behavior? Come on, bringing such an extreme example into the discussion does nothing to help it. If you're trying to prove that religion can be used for bad things, then I concede the point. Of course it can. Now we can discuss something productive.
And as far as you believing that organized religion is nothing more than an attempt to gain power by the leaders, well, maybe that is the case sometimes, but if you can't see anything but evil motives in these people's actions, then there's not much that can sway you. All I can say is that your interpretation is not the only reasonable explanation.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that the human experience consists of more then scientific inquiry. Inspiration, emotion, "awareness," identity, being able to both look up to God or look away from religion, spirituality, and so much more cannot be quantified and measured.
Having faith and spirituality is an attempt in trying to focus on more then a stale view of the universe that seems at odds with so many people's personal experiences. Faith can be very abused but so can science. One should not tout one superior to the other.
You can read a beautiful story about an apple tree in garden and dismiss it with science or appreciate any metaphorical truths that may be found.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, you are stating your belief in the Mormon God, and its tenets, as absolute, or true. For the sake of our continued discussion, I will add "IMHO"s, as appropriate (as I have said you all are certainly allowed to do with my statments of alleged absolutes).
I apologize for that. I get tired of saying "I believe" or "I think" or IMO every sentance. I should just put a big disclaimer up front or say, "Stay with me here, all the following is hypothetical". Please except this post as serving that purpose.
As for your concern about faith being insubstantial, can't help you there. I think we all agree that the existence of God can't be proven (except through individual experience). I choose to have faith, you (and others) choose not to. As I have said before, IF we find ourselves in the afterlife together, we can talk about it then. I'm not going to beat you over the head with it.
As for the idea that organized religions are excercising control over others, perhaps there is an element of that. The way our church is organized makes it a bit more difficult though. You see, any LDS man can hold the priesthood, assuming he is worthy. (Worthiness is determined through an interview, and yes, that man could lie his way through it, but I would like to believe that that case is far in the minority.) All positions in the church are fulfilled by the members themselves. They don't get paid. They get asked and either say yes or no. Bishops, teachers, any calling, lasts maybe a few years. The bishop over a group can be a bishop one week and a nursery worker the next. It is not viewed as a "demotion" since all callings are equally important.
IIRC, the presidency and apostles of the church receive some sort of allowance due to the amount of time they put in, and those callings are "for life". So if you wanted to make an argument for control, this would be the group to make the issue with. The way a new apostle is chosen when one has died (and with any other policy-changing decision in the church) is that they all pray and come to a unanimous decision. It would be hard for one person to have anything like absolute controll, but I suppose, conceivable.
If you find it difficult or impossible to believe in prophets, then you must toss out all scripture, right? And if you can't believe in prophets and you have to receive any info from God from the horses mouth, then you probably will never have faith in God in this life. I can live with that.
I am sorry that some people use their beliefs to do terrible things. It makes it harder for those who would not use such an excuse for personal gain or force. I hate the way a few give many innocent a "bad rap". That's not fair. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think we're agreed on the "IMHO" waivers and disclaimers. I didn't mean to harp on it all that much, and I figured we're both pretty serious abut our points of view.
From what you described, the Mormon Church sounds relatively level-headed these days. One must acknowledge, however, that at its inception it was substantially about control. The Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind.
Not to single out the Mormon faith--the early Roman Catholic Church was also about control (the Crusades occured a few hundred years after the Papacy began; I'm sure I can find more evidence of the controlling aspect if I dig around on the Internet for more than just a minute or two). And it's certainly about control now. Birth control, anyone?
quote:If you find it difficult or impossible to believe in prophets, then you must toss out all scripture, right? And if you can't believe in prophets and you have to receive any info from God from the horses mouth, then you probably will never have faith in God in this life.
That's pretty much it.
Oh, and atheists can use faith and dogma to do some pretty terrible things, too. Stalin and Mao come to mind. But it wasn't just atheism, though. It was atheism and repression of free thought and expression (in other words: a demand for unquestioning faith in the political system, and its powerful, charismatic leaders)! There's an interesting combination: atheism and repression of free thought!
I'm not quite sure where Hitler stands in all of this. I think both sides want the other side to claim him, but no one will. Anyway, another powerful charismatic leader demanding faith.
Maybe "My Problem" (thanks for that phrase, John) isn't religion as much as it is the need for some groups to demand unquestioning faith of theier followers....I'm not actually sure if I believe that one myself; I'll have to take it under advisement.
Alexa,
quote:Having faith and spirituality is an attempt in trying to focus on more then a stale view of the universe that seems at odds with so many people's personal experiences....
You can read a beautiful story about an apple tree in garden and dismiss it with science or appreciate any metaphorical truths that may be found.
First of all, I never said that I have a "stale view of the universe." I find it just as fascinating as the next dog does. For you to assume that atheists (or, at a minimum, the "faithless") see a "staler" universe is also expressing a negative personal bias towards atheists (the faithless).
And I have absolutely no problem appreciating the Bible as a metaphor. I've always assumed that's exactly what it is. But I do have a problem accepting it as "truth" (a true description of the birth and growth of the physical and human world), as many people--some of whom have posted here--apparently do. (Not to say that those who feel it is truth "have a problem." That's for John L to say.)
posted
For the record, DOG, it is by no means proven that the leadership of the LDS church had anything to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Those who say Brigham Young authorized it are operating mostly on speculation. There was a thread about this a little while ago here, anyone remember which one it was? And I don't have to acknowledge that even at its inception, the church was all about control. We've had the same mechanisms for choosing our leaders ever since Brigham Young became the president of the church.
As for the Catholic church:
quote:And it's certainly about control now. Birth control, anyone?
Yeah, you're right, they couldn't possibly hold that policy because they actually believe that it's God's will. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt DOG, but if you keep assuming that your reasoning is the only possible explanation for someone's motives, I don't know how this discussion can be productive.
quote:Maybe "My Problem" (thanks for that phrase, John) isn't religion as much as it is the need for some groups to demand unquestioning faith of theier followers....
And by lumping "all religion" into that group it's you who have committed a logical error. I know that my religion doesn't demand unquestioning faith. They tell us to test the veracity of their claims through prayer and living the principles, and then let us judge whether that has the desired effect in our lives. And they tell us to do this about everything, not just the decision of whether or not to join the church. And I'm sure if you looked around some you could find other churches who demand similar things of their members.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DOG, I am not sure I agree that they were more about control in the early days, but I can see why it might appear that way. For all I know, you may know more than I about it.
On the MMM, saying that was about control all depends on whether or not church authority was involved. From what I know of those leaders, I think that such actions would have been out of character for them. But it sounds like just the sort of thing you would get from an underground angry minority. The truth is, I don't really know one way or the other.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:the early Roman Catholic Church was also about control (the Crusades occured a few hundred years after the Papacy began; I'm sure I can find more evidence of the controlling aspect if I dig around on the Internet for more than just a minute or two).
1) I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about condoms. Tell me why a religious organization would want to regulate that?
2) I didn't say that all religions demand unquestioning faith. You quoted me; please re-read: I said some groups. Though I do know that the majority Christian religions in the US are not too big on questioning faith.
quote:tell us to test the veracity of their claims through prayer and living the principles, and then let us judge whether that has the desired effect in our lives
There's some small thing amiss there; and I can't quite put my paw on it...If believing that God exists (and that He exists in the way your Church says He exists) has the desired effect in your life, then that's good. But it is not a proof that God exists. If believing that light is ONLY a wave, and not a particle; or if believing that there is no Lorentzian time-dilation effect at near-light-speeds has the desired effect in your life (I know that my life is not impacted in the least by Einstein's modifications to Newton's laws, and--except for the solar cells on my calculator--I'm just fine believing that light is only a wave); again, does not make those beliefs true. It makes them useful, but not true (though they may still be true--it's just that their utility is not a proof of their actuality).
I felt real strange bringing up the MMM. It was probably offensive to do so, in ways that I don't properly comprehend. My point is this: as an atheist, I wonder about the people in charge of religious institutions. Certainly there is an aspect of control. There are a number of write-ups on the MMM (again, from that recent thread we all remember) which indicate a very strong "controlling" aspect. There is also (we all hope!) a stronger aspect of grace, and other proper religious attitudes and goals.
Hopefully, the people leading these institutions truly believe their own religious tenets (though I think everyone feels that for many of the "Cultist" religions, this may not be true), and are not just manipulating things for other reasons.
It's late--I'm starting to ramble, and I've chosen a subject likely to offend friends...so I'm going to stop for the evening before I put my foot in my mouth. Um...paw.
--DOG
Dag,
I meant earlier incidents. My history is not the strongest...
posted
bev, I'm not really sure where our disconnect is. I think that I'm doing a pretty bad job of expressing myself and what the nature of my objection is. I still don't think that your explanations, while giving me an interesting look into how you believe, have answered my objection.
But I'm also aware that we have some very different basic assumptions. I don't see why you would assume that Truth (with the capital T) would have to be logically consistent. Even if this is true (and I don't have any evidence one way or the other), I am completely against the idea that human beings' ability to comprehend Truth is advanced enough that our minds not being able to conceive of things fitting together would mean tat they logically don't.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I have no clue if that did anything to answer your question.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt DOG, but if you keep assuming that your reasoning is the only possible explanation for someone's motives, I don't know how this discussion can be productive.
