posted
"Try before you buy. How is that brainwashing?"
Well, speaking as someone who HAS tried, and didn't buy, I was told repeatedly that I had not apparently tried in the right spirit, or honestly enough, or humbly enough, or....Anyway, you get the idea: that I would have to keep trying, each time with less and less skepticism, and I would know that I was finally doing it properly when I felt what they told me I should be feeling.
That is, I'm afraid, brainwashing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, the logic tends to be: Well if it didn't happen, obviously you didn't do it right.
Which is one possible explanation. Another is - there was nothing to happen and I'm not willing to lie or pretend something did happen.
If I make myself believe, then yes - I could find faith. But that doesn't convince me of the inherent rightness or correctness of this faith versus any other self-perpetuating belief system.
quote: Dag, in order for your two additional possibilities to be MORE likely than groupthink or delusion, you would have to accept two other postulates:
1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him; 2) That the other supernaturals out there conveying different messages either outnumber God or communicate faster and more efficiently.
He would *have* to accept these two other postulates? You speak as though those are the only explainations. I can come up with others, the ones I personally believe.
First of all, you have to accept this postulate: that faith is a necessary thing to develop to reach the potential God has in mind for us. I must admit, I do not fully understand this postulate myself. But I do accept it without difficulty because of my own reasons for faith and because I accept that there is much that the human mind cannot grasp.
Secondly, you have to accept that free agency is crucial also. This is much easier for me to accept, because I can understand the benefits to human growth. I do admit that it is difficult to understand the delicate balance between free agency and faith. On one extreme, you have rebellion against God. The other extreme is blind obedience. I think both are undesirable.
Therefore, God must communicate with man (or woman) in such a way that does not erase the need to develop faith and still allows him his free agency. This is a pretty big filter to work through. I am certainly not surprised at garbled outputs.
Third, those other supernaturals *could* be enemies to God given their own free agency to influence man so that man can truly have free agency. If I may quote scripture, 2 Nephi 2:16
quote: 16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act• for himself. Wherefore, man could not act• for himself save it should be that he was enticed• by the one or the other.
"One or the other" refers to good and evil.
So how would man know what to believe? That is what the Holy Ghost is for. While the communication is subtle, it is undeniable unless a person is being dishonest with themselves.
How do you know the difference between such influence and the thoughts and feelings natural to your mind? First, I imagine you do have to be actually looking for it. Secondly, you have to be ready to receive it, to accept it. Thirdly, if you experience it, you will know.
Not the most satisfactory answer, but oh well. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I WAS going to stay out of this, but Tom...
quote: 1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him;
You don't think God has the ability to make us all believe exactly as he wants us to believe instanteously whenever he wants? Sure, God could just suddenly open himself up so that everyone in the world would know him, and know all the answers to all the questions, and have no division or argumentation of beliefs at all...
...but then that wouldn't be freewill on our part, would it? It wouldn't be giving us a choice as to whether or not to believe on faith. That would make us nothing more than his drones -- because there would be no CHOOSING to follow God...
posted
To both Tom and Trevor, while I might privately believe that is true--that the reason you did not receive a witness has more to do with you than the actual truth--I probably wouldn't say that to your face unless directly asked.
I can't speak of your specific experience, Tom, because I know nothing about it. Nothing to go on.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Beverly touched on some of the possible effects of too direct communication with God. There are others that have been discussed, but I think these are the big two.
It may be that God does exist and to experience his proof requires me to first embrace him of my own free will.
It is equally possible that I cannot hope to understand God's intentions as He is so completely alien to my own understanding, so every challenge I pose has a legitimate answer that is beyond my ken to understand.
But from my outsider's perspective, that answer could be applied to any number of philosophies, Christianity or LDS being just two of the chorus. And with equal justification.
posted
As long as you admit that it is a possibility, that's fine with me. I freely admit that the explaination of their being no God makes just as much sense to the human mind. I am not at all surprised at the growing number of athiests and agnostics about us. People can come up with explainations to believe whatever they want to believe.
I just want Tom to admit that he is every bit as evangelical as I am, if not more so. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, BTW Tom, if you have tried and you ain't buyin' and the person is pressuring you further, that is akin to brainwashing. I would hope that I haven't done that to anyone. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Beverly touched on some of the possible effects of too direct communication with God."
If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.
-----
Bev, I'll freely admit to trying to be an evangelical agnostic; in fact, I announced my intentions along those lines a month or two ago on this forum, specifically in response to what I believe is a growing religious threat not only to our society but specifically to this forum. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.
Ah, but consider a patient God who gives us every chance to accept Him, both in this life and for quite a long while after this life. According to my understanding of LDS theology, our own personal final judgement does not come until God has given us far more chances than we deserve.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.
It's not a question of "learning," Tom. It's a question of choosing.
posted
Tom, you blame the teacher for the unruly kids who sit in the class, don't pay attention, and disrespect the teacher, causing trouble and dissention among the classmates?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG, I disagree that if God told us, with complete certainty that he existed, that it would remove free will from us. Telling someone a fact doesn't remove the free will of a person to act on that given fact.
After all, Lucifer knew exactly that God existed, but still rejected Him.
But that still begs the question of why the chances given in this life aren't more explicit and/or common.
Especially once you move into the realm of a belief in a God that intervenes in mortal, temporal life. Why does he intervene at some times and not at others, and in some ways and not in others?
I don't even think that LDS doctrine [which I believe] can answer that dilemma fully -- although I do think that the specifics of the LDS view on the attributes and characteristics of God go further to answering that question than many other Christian denominatons.
FWIW: Although I enjoy these discussions, I think that ultimately they become problematic for LDS participants because of a lack of LDS "theology." That is not to say that there aren't LDS doctrines about the nature of God, good and evil, etc. But at it's heart is a religion that is centered around practice and revelatory experiences.
EDIT: This is the post from beverly that I am responding to -- didn't realize this thread would go so fast that mine wouldn't be on the same page:
quote:Ah, but consider a patient God who gives us every chance to accept Him, both in this life and for quite a long while after this life. According to my understanding of LDS theology, our own personal final judgement does not come until God has given us far more chances than we deserve.
posted
@Lucifer: we're only getting one side of the story. And probably a garbled one at that.
And I refer you to my "barrels on the obstacle course" idea. Perhaps Lucifer is fulfilling his own requirements in the grand plan.
Zal - I don't think any doctrine or dogma could fully and completely answer every challenge presented to it. Certainly not to the satisfaction of determined skeptics and those of us who attempt to understand the world and indeed the Universe through our own perceptions, abilities and therefore limitations.
LDS is in no way different from any other theology - they do their best to answer, but short of a definitive answer key, the best response is "well, we believe this to be true."
Beverly was quite succinct when she supplied the notion that a core LDS belief is that even God must adhere to rules, although he does so out of choice rather than inherent limitation. It justifies quite a bit, but only if you accept the premises of:
God exists
God is bound by rules that he agrees to follow
Some things are just "It's a God thing, you wouldn't understand"
I would imagine you could make similar challenges to the Catholic faith (for example) and at some point, it would be pared down to a matter of belief and Faith.
Short of Dag's time machine, a lot of things are generally "believed" to be true based on recollections, primary and secondary evidence as well as third-hand sources that may or may not be accurate.
quote: FG, I disagree that if God told us, with complete certainty that he existed, that it would remove free will from us. Telling someone a fact doesn't remove the free will of a person to act on that given fact.
Bok, I was trying to touch on MORE than just "certainty that he exists". To me, we know already know He exists through evidence in his creation.
But that aside -- I was referring to Tom's problem with the idea that so many different religions have so many different ideas of what is right. And saying that if God just opened up and said from heaven "THIS is right --" (as far as what to believe about Him, and about creation, and about the future) then that would take out the whole element of faith and choosing, by our freewill, to learn and study and pray for his guidance, and follow God.
quote:Why does he intervene at some times and not at others, and in some ways and not in others?
I never found this question troubling, mainly because I looked at the extremes. If God always intervened, then we'd have no free will, becaue our actions would only have results if they happened to be the results God wanted. If God never intervened, then we'd have no way of knowing what he wants at all.
posted
FG, your argument, in this case, it seems to me, to be "if God acts in a way to take away our free will, then we will lose our free will."
Which is true by default.
However I think there are ways God could communicate that would give surety to his existence, even his religious preference, while not unveiling any particular future plans, and thus not revoking free will.
-Bok
EDIT: I also add that your justification through creation is similarly circular. I don't see anything about creation that I couldn't think of a solely materialistic cause for.
posted
It's not just free will, at least in my own interpretation of it. Any means of communicating where no doubt is left would make it impossible to choose for ourselves. It's related to the idea that looking on God's face is fatal for the average human, although not exactly the same. It's hard for me to articulate.
Besides, what method of communication would alleviate all doubt?
posted
I get the feeling that if Jesus came down and gave some people a big hug, they'd think it was one of Bush's evil schemes.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom, you blame the teacher for the unruly kids who sit in the class, don't pay attention, and disrespect the teacher, causing trouble and dissention among the classmates?"
I would submit two things:
1) A good teacher can overcome even these problems, particularly if that teacher happens to be both omnipotent and omniscient.
2) Not every unbeliever -- or even the majority of unbelievers -- is an unruly and troublemaking student. At worst, they're mostly willing students who have been distracted by troublemakers. So why does God not send the real troublemakers to the principal's office more often?
On this board alone, we have representatives of at least three major religions and no fewer than eight Christian sects. They cannot all be right simultaneously, and yet most of these representatives believe that they have received divine assurances regarding their own specific belief. Are they troublemakers? Poor learners? How is it possible that so many of them have misunderstood the words of God, assuming they've heard Him at all?
-----
"Besides, what method of communication would alleviate all doubt?"
A while back, I described one method that I used when I was seeking. I suspect that these methods would be different for each person, but also suspect that God would probably not be excessively put out at having to customize His message, since He IS said to have an infinite amount of time and resources at His disposal.
quote: FG, I disagree that if God told us, with complete certainty that he existed, that it would remove free will from us. Telling someone a fact doesn't remove the free will of a person to act on that given fact.
Then consider the LDS doctrine of Pre-earth Life. The idea is that we once all knew for sure that God exists. We learned and progressed as much as we could under those circumstances. Our time here is then a test of what our spirits have become, and that test involves faith, among many other things. It is essential.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: However I think there are ways God could communicate that would give surety to his existence, even his religious preference, while not unveiling any particular future plans, and thus not revoking free will.
I agree, Bok, I believe this could be done. It would appear that for whatever reason, God has seen fit not to do this. (Or you could just believe that such a God as this does not exist.)
I have some ideas on why I believe God has not done this. Part of it has to do with the Pre-earth Life concept. God already knows what we will do when we know He exists. He wants to know what we will do when we don't know.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after getting pretty thoroughly frustrated with the traditional methods of seeking God, I put a piece of colored construction paper in a sealed envelope in my closet and checked it periodically to see if bits of color had been changed in order to form a message. No dice. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, FG, that's a perfect example of how difficult it could be to come up with 100% reliable communication. What if another entity snuck in there and made the message? If God is choosing to not physically restrain creatures he's given free will, then it's hard to imagine any message not subject to doubt.
posted
Oh, I also humbly submit that while there may have been athiests since the beginning of civilization, as science reveals an increasingly complex universe the number of athiests has increased; that God may have chosen such a time to reveal additional doctrine answering certain questions more completely in order to deal with new generations of His increasingly more inquisitive children? (sorry 'bout the run-on-sentance)
I know the explainations from the other side already, but just a thought.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone here read "Contact?" Something like the proof that Ellie found would convince me. I think it would probably convince just about any skeptic.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you obviously didn't stuff the envelope sincerely enough.
j/k ----
Edited to add that the above was said with all respect and affection, and that any smidgeon of snarkiness contained therein is directed towards and only towards those that want him to try the prayer thing again (e.g., me).
Edited II: Oh, now I'm worried because I didn't show respect towards the experiment. I suspect that Tom never lost his sense of humor even in the midst of that, and that's what I was appealing to, but there's a chance that there's nothing humoresque there at all and I'm being horribly offensive. Give me 30 seconds and I'll probably delete this out of panic.
quote: as science reveals an increasingly complex universe the number of athiests has increased
Maybe the causality of this statment is reversed. "At the current rate of increase, by 2010 everyone in North America will be an Elvis impersonator." just popped into my head. I saw it on a show about Elvis impersonators once.
P.S. Dagonee- yes the glory of God would not only kill a mortal, but would take away our free agency. That is why the Holy Ghost is how He communicates with us. (Switching to LDS theology) The Holy Ghost is not as strong as any mortal, so we can abide its presence and disobey/distort what we are told.
posted
bev, well I hope he judges me mercifully for trying to be the most decent person I can be... And forgives my selfishness in hoping that I get to remain in the highest heaven regardless of the advertised prices
quote:See, by my definition, you're an atheist, Verily.
How do you figure? By definition, an atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist. A true atheist does not accept the possibility that God may exist. An atheist says, "There is no God."
I say nothing of the kind. I say, "There may be a God. There may even, for all I know, be an entire pantheon of gods." I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility. I'm even willing to listen to evidence trying to convince me one way or the other. So far, none of the evidence--pro-existence or anti-existence--has appeared convincing to me. Therefore I have not joined either camp.
It's possible that I may one day take a side--but only if presented with convincing evidence. And frankly, the atheists would have a much harder time of that than the theists. If God exists, then it should be possible, theoretically, to prove it. The fact that no one, as far as I can see, has yet managed to do so does not constitute proof of the opposite position. It could never really be proven that God doesn't exist, even if it is true.
So though it may appear to the religious-minded that I tend toward atheism, in that I don't live my life as though I am being watched and judged by a Supreme Being, the truth is that it would be much easier to convert me to some religion than to convert me to atheism. Before I could become an atheist, I'd need to be presented with credible evidence that God doesn't exist, and frankly, I just don't think that's possible.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mercy of God is not a bad thing to hope for. Being the best you can be has got to be helpful.
Pooka, my phrasing there was not quite as I would like it to be. There are so many reasons for more people today to be athiest or agnostic. People have more lesiure time, are less dependent on "Providence" (at least in this prosperous, relatively peaceful country), are more educated (therefore more questioning, more curious), *and* with the scientific discoveries, past scripture is being called into question.
So, if God knows this will happen, is expecting it, it is not unreasonable to assume that He might see fit to reveal more about Himself and the universe to give people more reason to believe.
But that would be assuming causality in a one direction when it is just as easy for someone to assume causality in the other.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a term for someone who doesn't know if there is a Creator/s or Supreme Being/s, doesn't think you can no, and yet strongly rejects the idea of the traditional Judeo/Christian/Muslim God?
It seems like a fair amount of agnostics fit into that sub-category--people turned off by the Biblical God.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't know if that was directed against me or not, but I will provide a response.
The Biblical or Christian God is the most common factor in conversion attempts or lectures regarding my morality and/or spirituality.
Although living in the South, I may be more exposed than most to questions like "have I been saved" or "have I met my Lord and Savior?"
To a lesser extent, the Religious Right seems to favor a proactive action in using their God to dictate law and policy in this country - see the birth control and abortion threads, as well as gay rights, etc.
As a genuinely neutral agnostic, I feel that I must respond in the same manner in which I feel like I am being challenged. The more I feel I am pushed, the more I feel I have to push back. By comparison, I have yet to be confronted by Buddhists or Hindus or even Muslims trying to convert me. Which, again, may be simply a matter of geographical happenstance.
Bev is one of the few people who is willing to concede that there is a vague chance she might be wrong and she doesn't have any intention of making me see the error of my ways, nor does she believe I must be converted.
To that end, I have made every effort not to be offensive in discussing the finer points of the admittedly fascinating theology discussion because I think she is receptive and isn't trying to force her belief system where it isn't wanted.
So I'm not angry, per se, but rather vigorous in defense of my position. Which, hopefully, doesn't require the liberal use of a stake and charcoal briquettes.
posted
This site is the best I have found for information on atheism and agnosticism, including really great definitions and an exploration of different kinds of atheism.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was more thinking of Tom (and others) than you, Trevor, especially considering how respectful you have been in our discussion here. *BUT* I am not surprised to hear that you have been soured to the Judeo/Christian (or maybe just Christian) religions by your experiences. I could kinda tell.
And I am not surprised either. Many people are offensive about it. It is a shame to discount the doctrine because the believers were insensitive or obnoxious. They are human and imperfect. But hopefully they are trying to be better.
Of course there are plenty of people who want to believe that they are believers, but they are not all that serious about following. Best not to judge religions by those people either.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor, it isn't the case that you and Tom are alone on this board. It's that most of your agnostic fellows don't usually look in a fast moving thread on Mormon Theology. If you run a search on "agnostic" you can find a lot of interesting discussions. I haven't been able to find the particular one I was thinking of. Maybe it was Faith vs. Religion.
As a bible belt survivor, let me say you have my sympathies.
P.S. While I am definitely a believer, I haven't perfected living my life as if someone were watching either.
posted
Nah, pooka, I'm talking about outright hypocracy there. Being dishonest about the whole thing. I doubt that is your problem.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
" then it's all good.
