posted
If there is some sort of omnipotent being up there, I'll bet it gets a good chuckle seeing all the people who think they've got him/her/it pegged.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Early Roman Catholic Church was not "about control." The birth control comment was quite ridiculous as well, for reasons already pointed out by someone else.
The one constant in you posts seems to be your unwillingness to use anyone's standards but your own in trying to infer motivation from act.
quote:The one constant in you posts seems to be your unwillingness to use anyone's standards but your own in trying to infer motivation from act.
[edit] "Infer motivation from act"? Infer a person's motivations based on their actions? I'll double check my posts, but I don't seem to recall telling people why they act a certain way. I've questioned their self-justification (XXXXX, do you really hear demons and angels whispering into your ears, or is that just you?).
But you are right in another way. I tend to use my own standards for determining what I consider to be (or likely to be) real or "true." [/edit]
But OK, so I'll use someone else's standards.
I'll use...John L's standards! "You're all wrong, and your problem is that you don't even know you're wrong. And you're racist. And a whiner. And you look like an anvil, or a piece of cheese. And what's with those boxing gloves? How do you type?"
Or....I'll use Pooka's standard
quote:So if I need guidance about the day to day operations of my children, I don't ask my bishop or even my husband about it. I just pray about it.
Further, the method is to think about the problem and then pray about whether the solution thought up is right.
God, am I right about all this? I mean, that you don't exist and all?
posted
I wasn't talking about how people come to their religious beliefs. I'm talking that you automatically assume that an institution that postualtes a particular moral principle is acting in order to control other people.
in other words, you think, "The only way I could believe X is if I also believed Y. Therefore people who believe X must also believe Y. Y is ridiculous. Therefore people who believe X have ridiculous beliefs."
You never even acknowledge the possibility that people who believe X do so because of A, B, and C.
posted
I know that I fall into this trap myself. Even when I know that people say that it's because of A,B, and C, I often say to myself "They *say* it's because of A,B,and C, but I find it hard to believe that. Deep down, it's probably about Y."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I didn't mean to imply that an institution that postualtes a particular moral principle is acting in order to control other people. I meant to raise the possibility up for examination. I can't go back and check right now, but I will bet that I said it pretty strongly, though!
quote: 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.
Interesting perspective. We both believe that human reasoning and logic alone are lacking. For you, that means that just because things appear to conflict doesn't mean they in actuality conflict because we don't know enough to be sure. Is that right?
I have always figured that truth would be consistent and agree with itself, but I can accept that things that appear to conflict may not in reality, and that we just don't see it.
My feeling that human minds are lacking lends to a belief in the need for continuing revelation from God to keep us from erring in our incorrect assumptions. Again, some feel that personal revelation from God is enough, but my thought is that if it were, there would be a lot more commonly-reached conclusions. But from your perspective, the different conclusions could all be part of the same truth.
IMO, the whole "truth" is not revealed. At best, it is only revealed in part. I can use my human brain to try and extrapolate the missing information from what I have, but even I think that I will probably not be right. I believe that the Lord can impart to me greater wisdom and understanding on something He has already revealed, but I believe that He would only reveal "new" information to someone He has chosen as a prophet, a "mouth-piece" if you will. I believe that is how He works.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
What does God really want? Why does God prefer converts/servants to allies? What if God really did tell you to kill someone? How can you be ABSOLUTELY sure you are hearing God, and not Something Else? What's God's Agenda? What if I don't agree with it? If God told you to do something you believed was morally wrong, how could you bring yourself to do it? Why should you "surrender" your will?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny, those are very good questions. I will try to take a stab at them, though I suspect only God could answer some of them.
What does God really want?
I think He wants us to become like him.
Why does God prefer converts/servants to allies?
Assuming this is the God I believe in (well that holds for all my answers), because He knows He is right and if our mindset differs, we are at fault. It is not arrogance, just the way it is.
What if God really did tell you to kill someone?
This happened to a prophet in the Book of Mormon named Nephi. He really hesitated over it. He was told some of the reasons why. He hesitated some more, then he did it. I believe it could happen. I believe that if it did, it would be the right thing to do.
How can you be ABSOLUTELY sure you are hearing God, and not Something Else?
I don't know. That is a judgement call an individual must make. Better be pretty darn sure, in this case.
What's God's Agenda?
"To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
What if I don't agree with it?
Then you are an enemy to God. He allows you your free agency, but He will also hold you accountable.
If God told you to do something you believed was morally wrong, how could you bring yourself to do it?
If you were sure the message came from God and had faith in God's infalability, then you would assume the fault was in your understanding.
Why should you "surrender" your will?
Because you trust that God loves you and everyone and wants and knows what is best. You believe that such a surrender will have good consequenses.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dog, Do you mind if I write your name in lowercase? Whenever I write it in all caps I feel like I'm yelling at you.
quote:1) I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about condoms. Tell me why a religious organization would want to regulate that?
because they believe that sex is intrinsically connected with bringing new life into the world and should be used as such. because they believe that every conception is a gift from God and if he doesn't want you to have a baby he won't let you conceive.
I don't necessarily agree with those views, I'm not even sure if they accurately represent the Catholic position, but they are alternate explanations that don't involve "control."
quote: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.
Ah. I drew that conclusion from the title of this thread and the general tone of your posts, but if that doesn't represent your position then I apologize.
quote: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.
I never said it was definitive proof. But this goes back to what I said in my first post: you and I have different standards for what constitutes reasonable evidence. You apparently will not accept anything that is not provable by the scientific method. I don't hold that standard. Which one of us holds the more correct method? We can argue that in the afterlife.
And I'm not really sure what your point is anymore on the "control" issue. Maybe it would be helpful to summarize what you're trying to accomplish here. I admit that in many cases throughout history religion has had a significant control aspect as its motivation. I do not think it has been the only motivation. From your last post I'm wondering if we really disagree about it, and yet we're still arguing. Clarify, please.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why do you think God wants us to become more like him? How do you know this is what he wants? How do you know this is not propaganda? And is "God" properly defined so you know what you are expected to become more like?
Even if our minds are not equal to God's, why can't we be allies? If we have the ability to oppose or choose to work with God, then why shouldn't God ally with people who have the same goals, instead of expecting them to be unquestioning servants?
What are the consequences of following God's will? What if they are detrimental to you? What if it is God's will that you be damned, so that some other guy or a bunch of guys can be saved?
If God's Agenda is the "immortality and eternal life of man", what happens once the agenda is achieved? Say men become immortal and eternal. Then what? What if that gets achieved and everyone's still a slave to God?
Why give people Free Will, if it must be ultimately sublimated?
What if God didn't really want what was best for You, personally? Why should God care what is best for you, personally? Does God care more for you personally or for mankind?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
The control issue was a tangential topic. I think we may be substantially in agreement on it, though. Still, many religions maintain a certain level of control on their followers; some more than others. IMO, they must, since they are based on false premises. However, that isn't to say that they can't also have noble goals as well (and, to strip out all those double-negatives, they may even have noble goals...son of a gun!). For any religion to take hold in the hearts and minds and pockets of its followers, it has to at least start out with some modicum of control over its followers. The religions that didn't, I imagine, didn't exist for long.
quote:You and I have different standards for what constitutes reasonable evidence. You apparently will not accept anything that is not provable by the scientific method. I don't hold that standard.
What standard do you hold? And...(watch out--it's a trick question!)...how do you know your standard works. More specifically: how do you know it works better than mine, or how do you know if my standard is a valid or non-valid approach to understanding the universe/meatverse.
(No--not "meatverse"..."metaverse"! Sorry)
--DOG (Livin' in the meatverse!)
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a strange concept that maybe we, each human being has the power of god in them, to use as they use.. It goes a bit outside the bonds of Christianity which is why I quit it some time ago... It's just so easy for anyone regardless of religion be it Wicca or Buddhism to say they have the secrets, that they are prophets and that a person should sign their will over to them because they have God's mandate... There's no way of knowing whether it's true except to use instincts and intelligence at all times..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and like you said, re. the birth control aspect of the RC Church...
It is my opinion that any religion or group that tries to manipulate the sexual desires and behaviors of its constituents (assuming all of legal age, of course--I'll have no NAMBLA crap here!) has got serious control issues.
Of course I say that now, just as my kids are starting to enter their teen years...
--the DOGster Livin' large in the meatverse!
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing that bothers me... Sexuality. I am not a hedonist by any stretch of the imagination, but the rein that the Churches put on sexuality and its expression disturbs me a bit. *Tries to learn more*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What standard do you hold? And...(watch out--it's a trick question!)...how do you know your standard works.
My standard is that I believe I can receive knowledge from God through feelings and thoughts as well as basing my decisions on things that I can observe with my physical standards.
And I don't know it works in the sense that you're asking. I can't prove it scientifically. But based on my observations of life it seems to work pretty well for me.
And personally, I think your standard is valid, just incomplete. There are a lot of things that I have seen/experienced that can't be explained by current scientific theories. Some of these things are explained by religion. That doesn't mean I reject science, by any means. I just think that there are things that science wasn't meant to deal with, so we have to use other standards to evaluate them.
quote:It is my opinion that any religion or group that tries to manipulate the sexual desires and behaviors of its constituents (assuming all of legal age, of course--I'll have no NAMBLA crap here!) has got serious control issues.
You seem to have an interesting view of religions as groups. Who in the religion has control issues? Is it just the leaders, or just the original founder, or all of the members as well? What about the kid who grows up and believes his religion with all his heart and becomes the leader. Does he have control issues if he perpetuates the sexual teachings of his church? Speaking of this in terms of "the religion" as if it is the acting entity is confusing, and I think it obscures what you're trying to say.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer: I am answering these questions according to my beliefs. I realize that many would strongly disagree on some of these points.
Why do you think God wants us to become more like him? How do you know this is what he wants? How do you know this is not propaganda? And is "God" properly defined so you know what you are expected to become more like?
Why? I don't know exactly, but I believe that what He is is the greatest thing we can possibly be. I also believe that we *wanted* to be like Him and that is one of the reasons we are here on earth. How do I know? Because I believe He said so. My evidence is personal rather than scientificly testable. As for propaganda, I guess I trust Him that much. But as for how can you know? Depends on how much is required for you. But if you believe in a Biblically based God, a good starting place is studying those prayerfully, perhaps discussing with others. (If you are interested in the LDS perspective, I would add in LDS scripture also.) If you don't believe in a God with scripture, then I honestly don't know how you could come to know Him(She, It, They). I believe that He sent Christ as an example on what we are to become like. Matthew 5 is hard doctrine, but it is what we are to work towards, IMO.
Even if our minds are not equal to God's, why can't we be allies? If we have the ability to oppose or choose to work with God, then why shouldn't God ally with people who have the same goals, instead of expecting them to be unquestioning servants?
Can we be allies with God? In this life? Depends on your definition of allies. Some of the "conversations" God has had with some of His prophets makes it sound like they were allies to me. But for many of those stories, you'd have to investigate LDS scripture. From what I have read of the scriptures, God's servants do question Him. Sometimes He answers, sometimes not. I think it is really cool how there is a pattern in the scriptures of God refering to those who are "allied" with Him as servants, but then later, as they have proven their loyalty, as friends.
What are the consequences of following God's will? What if they are detrimental to you? What if it is God's will that you be damned, so that some other guy or a bunch of guys can be saved?
I am not sure how to how to answer that, because I don't believe God is like that. But it is a scary "what if" nonetheless! I guess my answer is, what could you possibly do to stop a God intent on damning you? Someone said something to the effect of: Enjoy rebelling against Him as long as I can.
If God's Agenda is the "immortality and eternal life of man", what happens once the agenda is achieved? Say men become immortal and eternal. Then what? What if that gets achieved and everyone's still a slave to God?
I don't know the full answer to that question, but I will answer what I do know according to my beliefs. We believe that the children of God can grow up to be like God in that they can create children of their own and continue the pattern of Gods and children of Gods. We believe this has been going on forever and will go on forever. Pretty unusual doctrine, I know. We also believe God will continue to have children that He will continue to put on other worlds He has made, forever. Granted, the requirements for becoming a "God" must be pretty steep. I hate to hear people toss it around lightly like, "When I have my own world, I will create unicorns." I feel presumptuous at all talking about "becoming a God", though I believe that is truly what God intends for us. I believe the universe is far bigger than even our most ambitious dreamers have imagined. When one of God's children has become like Him, I imagine the relationship might be compared to the relationship between a parent and their child who is now having children. I don't think we are ever slaves to God.
Why give people Free Will, if it must be ultimately sublimated?
Of all God's creations, we, His children, are the only ones capable of disobeying Him. We are also the only ones with the potential to become like Him. He is testing us to see what we will do. Will we follow Him? Choosing to is a big deal, and something we must experience and learn from. We are free not to, and I believe God will bless us as much as He "lawfully" can according to our obedience. (And because I have introduced the concept of the plurality of Gods, keep in mind that God does not just represent a personage, but He represents all that is good and right and "lawful" about the universe.) I think that the idea is that eventually our will will be the same as His will. That is how an innumerable "race" of Gods can all be considered "one" with no need to differentiate. They are not Borg or a Hive Mind, but their purpose and understanding is perfectly aligned.
What if God didn't really want what was best for You, personally? Why should God care what is best for you, personally? Does God care more for you personally or for mankind?
Since I believe God loves all His children. I also believe that God is wise beyond our understanding and delights in finding ways of blessing us. I don't think conflicting needs of His children frustrates Him much. I have always had trouble really having faith that God can care for me so much as an individual with so many others out there to consider. But He has said that He does, so mentally, I believe that.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DOG, I will not hesitate to say that the church to which I belong tries its best to influence its members. That is pretty crucial to the whole idea. But to say they are trying to "control" people.... I dunno. Sounds kinda "angsty" to me.
We believe in a God of order, laws, and patterns. I know that "order" and "law" have been used for the vilest of evils. In fact, I believe in Satan and I believe that he has created a "counterfiet" of most every good thing from God. But to say that "order" and "law" and "structure" are inherently bad is evil, IMO. But not everyone thinks anarchy is evil. I believe that freedom, order, law, and structure can coexist happily. I believe they do in the universe God created.
If you fear its abuse, that's fine. But it is not good to assume that everyplace you find order and structure you will also find abuse of power. I see that pattern in many athiests and agnostics concerning God. They feel deep down that anyone with that much power has got to be corrupt, at least judging from how He lets bad things happen to good people.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[JOKE]I'm having trouble figuring out if DOG is really a troll, or just a delusional dyslexic?[/JOKE]
I believe there is a God. I don't need Him to write me a note, appear in a burning bush or stop me in the road and talk to me through an ass. I believe because when I pray, I feel comfort and company. I have always envisioned Him as a the pentultimate father: giving life, loving, allowing our failures and rejoicing in our successes. Forgiving our transgressions and always loving us, because a parent's love is unconditional.
Aside from this, which I have thought about over and over again and never been able to disprove, I don't "know" anything about what I believe.
DOG, I don't belong to a religious group, but I will soon. In my life, there is more at stake than indulging my own acceptance of the unknown. I have kids and I belong to a community. I want my kids to have a point of reference/departure that is a bit broader than my simple beliefs. Also, the church community shares many of the same values that I do. It's nice to expose myself and my children to a community that doesn't rely on the "bad boy" image to justify itself.
As far as the "God is taking to you" thing, I think that JohnKeats started a thread a couple of years ago about whether or not God could tell you to do something that would prove to you that you weren't talking to God.
For me, anything that is the antithesis of what I believe His nature to be, is not good; is not of God, so I wouldn't do it. Basically, anything that doesn't build, create and support isn't of God in my opinion. I often think that God is the seed of our conscience and anything that would violate our conscience violates the God we believe in.
When I do something wrong or indulge in a petty grudge or anger, I not only feel like I'm letting myself down, but God as well. I want Him to be proud of me. I'm not for looking future reward, (I'm not that good a Capitalist ) but I'm looking for the warmth and pride from a job well done.
So what good is religion? I can't speak on a global basis, but I can say that I'm enriched by my faith because I "feel" that I never tackle any task alone and my community is enriched because I feel challeged to emulate the characteristics I see in God.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet you're contemplating joining an organized religion for the social aspects, LadyDove...?
Christy and I have talked about this, and I can't imagine joining a church so that my children would feel like they "belonged" to a community. It seems dishonest to me, for some reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, it sounds like LadyDove already has faith, just not participation in a formal group. Her post speaks to the importance of the community aspects of that faith. That's much different than how you summarized it.
Tom- I'm looking at a multi-faith, Christian community church. The kids are well-socialized through school, organized sports and business/social functions in and out of our home, but a church community IS different than the general community.
My husband is a very cynical Catholic. I'm a cynical Protestant. We are cynical about the organizations because of the experiences we've had.
Despite the cynicism, we both recognize that religious groups tend to have a very strong emphasis on family as part of the community. It seems that everything else is either about couples or individuals and their relationship to the community.
I grew-up walking home from school with a group of JW kids. They were bound by their faith and they were bound-together by their faith. I always wished that my family had the same pressures to succeed as a family. I get the same feeling from the LDS on this board.
I can and do give the best example I can for my kids, but it's somehow more powerful when the same words come from the mouths of other elders in the community.
As far as being "dishonest"; I struggle with that too. I was very disillusioned by my church community- but I was disillusioned because they didn't live-up to the standards I perceived that they set for others. Yet while I was a part of the community, I learned the beauty of being able to talk about those ideals in a safe place. Honesty, charity, inclusion and love were celebrated rather than looked on as the result of a simple mind's desire to better the world.
I think that it would be dishonest for me to say that my kids won't be able to sift the palatable from the unpalatable, just as I did.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think that it would be dishonest for me to say that my kids won't be able to sift the palatable from the unpalatable, just as I did."
No, that's not where the perceived dishonesty lay, at least for me.
What I would consider dishonest is belonging to a church to whose ideals and beliefs and dogmas you do not subscribe. Since this isn't the case -- it's a broad-minded and ecumenical church, and you believe in its precepts -- there doesn't seem to be any problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would only be dishonest if you claimed you believed what the church believed when you did not.
But there are plenty of folks, including myself, who go to churches and yet don't accept every piece of dogma they have. There's a set of beliefs that you have to profess to in order to become a member, but outside of that I don't think you are bound to accept all the ideals of your church. (I know people who'll switch entire denominations just so their kids can be in the same church as their friends, and so on.)
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
