posted
I'm surprised to hear you say that, Tom, given your views on courtesy. While Hammer's PoV-which also irritates me, and has for years, really (I am of the opinion that while having God around is certainly an incentive to do good, for it to be the ONLY incentive-to need an incentive at all-defeats the purpose of religion) KoM's response was pretty crass.
It could be said that Hammer meant well (I don't know him, so I don't know), but was just a bit naive, ignorant, or inconsiderate. Instead of pointing out those things, King of Men basically said you're a disgusting victim of mass-brainwashing, and I'm a much better person than you are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For my part, I should be most annoyed if someone used my name, which is all I expect to pass on, as a prop in their religious fantasies. But I expect this doesn't surprise anyone here.
&
quote:Indeed it was, until I was accused of being a nihilist with nothing to live for. I suspect you are reacting more to the 'King of Men' byline than the actual contents of my post.
There's a reason that byline is yours, KoM. You stuck with it in the very beginning of this thread.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really decided I like being Catholic better
Theca, i'm not pointing fingers at you... but I just hope that people don't use this as their excuse for which religion they follow.
If God took the time to establish a church, is he going to be understanding at the judgement seat when we say: "Uhm... I liked the other religion better... but I lived a good life... right?"
Now, I'm not going to say you're damned, as that is out of my league to understand -- nor do I believe it is true. But, I do hope that you've made this decision prayerfully and believe that you are in the church God has established. That, I believe, is what allows you to keep your heart open if God is trying to lead you elsewhere and this is just a stepping stone.
I'm going to use Dagonee as an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. [I hope you don't mind Dagonee, but I felt it would be better explained by using a familiar name.] He's Catholic, and believes that the Catholic Church is the true church. I may not agree with him on this, but he has explained that he has had confirmation, a personal witness, that the Catholic Church is true. Regardless of what anyone may try to teach him, he is not likely to convert to the Mormon faith through Hatrack discussion. Regardless of this, when he passes on to the next stage of his immortal existence -- now this is where I speak my beliefs as fact (because to me they ARE fact) -- and he learns that the Mormons were right he will then convert, presuming that he has lived a righteous life as he understands righteousness. However, if Dagonee were to be Catholic just because he liked it better -- refusing to consider God's plan, I think he'd be in a sad place at the Judgement Seat.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because open-mindedness about religion is one of the most important characteristics one can have?
I think I see a lot of simlarities between that kind of thinking and Conservative thinking. Conservatives believe that someone should be responsible for their own choices in life, whereas Liberals prefer to think about the upbringing and how those choices came about.
If someone is taught all their life that you should just pick the religion that you simply like better, and then they do that, will God judge them for it?
quote:Actually, what do you think you'll be doing for eternity in heaven? Just gonna hang out?
If I make it to Heaven, I expect to spend at least a thousand years re-questioning God's omniscience.
That's going to delay our game a bit, Zal.
Hammer, tone down your assumptions. Religion can be discussed openly and with civilly here on Hatrack-- there's no reason to back down from this particular topic. Just try to remember that everyone has their own reasons for believing as they do, and they generally go a lot deeper than what is printed here in the forum.
In the spirit of open communication-- I am LDS.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone is taught all their life that you should just pick the religion that you simply like better, and then they do that, will God judge them for it?
God will judge them perfectly fairly and justly, taking all of that into account.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
God forbid (and I use the phrase with a full sense of irony) that we should be judged justly. Mercy is what we want.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because open-mindedness about religion is one of the most important characteristics one can have?
Being humble is one of the most important characteristics one can have. Willingness to accept what God is offering and the consequences that come with those choices.
quote: I think I see a lot of simlarities between that kind of thinking and Conservative thinking. Conservatives believe that someone should be responsible for their own choices in life, whereas Liberals prefer to think about the upbringing and how those choices came about.
What of those of us that think that both aspects are important to consider? Personally, I don't see the connection you are trying to make.
quote: If someone is taught all their life that you should just pick the religion that you simply like better, and then they do that, will God judge them for it?
See what Porter said. I really don't have anything more to add.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: God will judge them perfectly fairly and justly, taking all of that into account.
That's what you say, and depite what gnixing just said, what she said earlier about judgement seems to indicate she believes otherwise.
quote:Being humble is one of the most important characteristics one can have. Willingness to accept what God is offering and the consequences that come with those choices.
You're side-stepping. You're answering my question directly without taking it into the context of the person we're discussing. She's already said she's looked into mormonism and though about it. And clearly being Catholic she is already willing to accept God.
quote: What of those of us that think that both aspects are important to consider? Personally, I don't see the connection you are trying to make.
Clearly you don't take both into consideration, if you think someone, who's choice of religion was maybe slightly less-thoughout, should be judged severely.
EDIT: Not that I'm claiming Theca didn't think out her choice. I think her wording was just not as powerful as gnixing would have liked.
quote: You're side-stepping. You're answering my question directly without taking it into the context of the person we're discussing. She's already said she's looked into mormonism and though about it. And clearly being Catholic she is already willing to accept God.
No. I'm making a statement that may be hard for you to understand -- Humility is a quality that is required by God of his children. And, being Catholic does NOT mean one is willing to accept God. All it means is that they have chosen a religion by which they wish to be associated. Being willing to accept God is not something that you or I can determine about someone else, but is something personal between the individual and God.
quote: Clearly you don't take both into consideration, if you think someone, who's choice of religion was maybe slightly less-thoughout, should be judged severely.
I'm glad that's so clear to you. Personally, I think you haven't got a clue. But, so as maybe to illustrate - one's choice of religion will surely be mentioned in the "trial" when we are in front of the judgement seat. However, the religion chosen is not so much important as the reasons for the choice and the spiritual understanding of the individual. This is not to say that the choice of religion is non-essential, but that for those who have a lack of spiritual understanding and choose "the wrong path," their choice will not condemn them. Their reasons and motivations for making their choices are much more important.
I'm not making any sort of judgement about Theca or her choice. All I am doing is noting that I hope that we all put more effort into our choices -- especially when it comes to religion and spirituality -- than saying, "Wow! This church is fun. I think I'll belong here because..." Nor do I believe that this is what Theca did, only that the way she phrased it provided an opportunity for discussion of an issue that I don't believe is off-topic.
You see, I live in a world where there is only one true church. Though, I don't expect many on this forum to agree, it is what I believe to be the reality of things. I believe that there are certain requirements to reach Eternal Life and I don't believe that because someone chose a different church that they will be condemned. I believe that they will have an opportunity to learn God's true plan and to accept or refuse it. Their motivations and understanding will be the key to their decision. Unfortunately, I also believe that if someone has a thick head and a hard heart, they will be among those that will refuse the truth when it is presented to them. It is here in life that we need to learn to open our hearts and minds. So that when the time comes that we have to decide whether or not to accept God's truth, that we may be willing.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not making any sort of judgement about Theca or her choice. All I am doing is noting that I hope that we all put more effort into our choices -- especially when it comes to religion and spirituality -- than saying, "Wow! This church is fun. I think I'll belong here because..." Nor do I believe that this is what Theca did, only that the way she phrased it provided an opportunity for discussion of an issue that I don't believe is off-topic.
Awesome, that's what we're doing.
quote: No. I'm making a statement that may be hard for you to understand -- Humility is a quality that is required by God of his children. And, being Catholic does NOT mean one is willing to accept God. All it means is that they have chosen a religion by which they wish to be associated. Being willing to accept God is not something that you or I can determine about someone else, but is something personal between the individual and God.
I understand it perfectly, but I don't think a lack of humility and not putting a huge amount of thought into one's choice of religion go hand-in-hand.
quote: I'm glad that's so clear to you. Personally, I think you haven't got a clue. But, so as maybe to illustrate - one's choice of religion will surely be mentioned in the "trial" when we are in front of the judgement seat. However, the religion chosen is not so much important as the reasons for the choice and the spiritual understanding of the individual. This is not to say that the choice of religion is non-essential, but that for those who have a lack of spiritual understanding and choose "the wrong path," their choice will not condemn them. Their reasons and motivations for making their choices are much more important.
When you say "reason for choosing it" do you mean direct reasons, like what the person was thinking when they chose it, or the things which shaped their character and made them think about the direct reasons.
Ok, that's probably confusing, but I'm tired.
Essentially, someone's only going to choose a religion for shallow reasons if they're understanding of religion is shallow. So I can't see how anyone can be judged for it.
quote: Unfortunately, I also believe that if someone has a thick head and a hard heart, they will be among those that will refuse the truth when it is presented to them.
Heh, so you believe there are people that upon dying and finding out what the true religion is form the big man himself will say "Not buying it"?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I understand it perfectly, but I don't think a lack of humility and not putting a huge amount of thought into one's choice of religion go hand-in-hand.
I believe that humility, or lack thereof, play a huge role in everything we do and say. Including one's choice of religion. I have met people that have come to a knowledge (in their opinion) that they have found the true church and refuse to convert because of the traditions of their fathers. I have met others that have converted in the face of bitter opposition from friends and family. Do I propose to know the consequences of their actions or choices? No. But I do believe that the latter individuals are going to be favored over the others.
quote: When you say "reason for choosing it" do you mean direct reasons, like what the person was thinking when they chose it, or the things which shaped their character and made them think about the direct reasons.
Ok, that's probably confusing, but I'm tired.
Essentially, someone's only going to choose a religion for shallow reasons if they're understanding of religion is shallow. So I can't see how anyone can be judged for it.
I mean both -- direct reasons and the thoughts and motivations that shaped the person's character. This is where personal responsibility joins hands with their upbringing when it comes to the consequences of their decisions.
This is where Porter's comments of perfectly fair and just trial is applicable. And fortunately, the atonement and Christ's gift of Mercy.
I do not believe that a savage raised on an island of cannibals is inherently damned because of the life they lived.
quote: Heh, so you believe there are people that upon dying and finding out what the true religion is form the big man himself will say "Not buying it"?
Yes. Though I would use the term "truth" in place of "true religion." I believe more accurately that there will be those that come to learn the truth from "the big man himself" and say "I think my way is better." And that is a foolish thing to say to the omniscient.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the face of so much opposition I'd just like to say that I really don't care whether I'm baptized after I'm dead.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already asked someone to baptize me when I am dead.
And I wondered if I would get called on that "liking" statement. I just just used it because I prefer not to get into more personal details online so I kept it simple.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do I propose to know the consequences of their actions or choices? No. But I do believe that the latter individuals are going to be favored over the others."
Does it matter what religion they convert from -- or to? If a Mormon leaves the church after much thought, for example, will they be favored over a Mormon who was born into the church and stuck with it because they never felt enough reason to leave?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Tom, to answer that question I need you to remove yourself from your worldview and put yourself into mine. In my worldview, the Mormon church is the current incarnation of the Church of Christ. A member of God's church that leaves the church is not going to be favored. However, I believe that God is going to take into account the reasons, the motivations, the understanding, etc.. of the individual in question.
As for the individual who is a member of God's church "just because," I don't have a high opinion of such individuals. I imagine that God's position on this has been stated by his prophets, but I'm not familiar enough with this lifestyle to comment.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
*is not trying to be antagonistic, just responding with my own opinions on things*
I can understand why some peeps were not liking this:
quote:KoM--sorry I misread your post. I'm saddened by such a position in life. What do you have to look forward to? Why bother doing anything if nothing matters once you are dead? It certainly negates my motivation to do good. It seems you would rather be a memory for a period of time than to be an eternal being. Probably a lot easier that way since there is no accountability for what you do with this life and no need to improve upon what you are it would seem.
I'm agnostic. That does not make me an immoral person. I don't personally need a big dad up in the sky with a carrot and a stick telling me what to do in order for me to be a decent citizen. As an agnostic/atheist I think that religion is a form of self-delusion...useful as a force to create social order when the police aren't around and as a mental buttress for stressful times...but still an illusion, imo.
Accountibility doesn't need to be forced on everyone. I would like to think that accountibility is actually a logical way to run a culture. For me it stands up as good all by itself without religion.
All the hubub around death with songs, ritual, funerals, tombstones... is ALL for the living. The dead have no need for it. It's all to help the survivors cope with the loss...and through ritual reinforce the "mirage" that we have souls that are immortal.
And it's not a question of wanting to be a memory rather than eternal... being eternal would be great! If it were real. Religion tries to relieve the fear of death by telling us over and over that we are in fact immortal. But, we are only memory/mortal...and the fact that we are not eternal, that when we die there is only oblivion, makes life SO much more precious, imo.
We are the Universe made manifest...we are all made of star stuff. You, me, that car, that house, that cat... We are pieces of the inanimate reality made self aware. That makes us all the same. If I hurt you, I'm actually hurting myself. If I help you, I help myself. All that matters is the good of the Human race.
[ April 24, 2005, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The dead have no need for it. It's all to help the survivors cope with the loss...and through ritual reinforce the "mirage" that we have souls that are immortal.
IRONY!
This is a profoundly religious post. FAITHful, even.
posted
Yeah, Telp, it is. It may be unintentional, but you stated, "the dead have no need of it."
Further, you stated in concise language that there was no afterlife.
Questions on death and life after it generally get answered by the religious and their religion. It's rare to hear a agnostic claim to know anything about the Other Side-- and rarer still to hear such a definitive opinion on it.
I don't discount the fact that you're an agnostic-- but you've set up a faith there in that post. You've created a religion, of sorts.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Well, there may be an afterlife of some form...energy is neither created nor destroyed after all. We loose the pattern that made us US, but our matter/energy is still out there. Usually just recycled back into the biosphere.
I figure the burden of proof lies with the religions of the world. Considering the idea of the supernatural and afterlife is so impossible religions need to give some evidence that these things exist...other than some 3000 year old book written by hundreds of people and edited just as many times.
I figure with science any one of us could have made the discoveries we know today. Religion, on the other hand, we never would have come up with those stories on our own...we had to be indoctrinated and fooled into believing them at a young age.
I see religion as an old old form of science. It was the ancients' only way to explain the natural world around them. "Why does it rain?" "Where are our origins?" "What is death?"
The ancients did not have the tools nor language to explain the natural processes of reality, so they made up stories to fill in the gaps. Now that we do have more advanced tools and processes to explain reality I think we should grow up and abandon that archaic way of thinking. There is no Santa Claus.
But hey, at the same time I would rather have people religious as apposed to violent and criminal. Social control isn't always bad. And I understand life is hard and unfair so others need religion to help them get through the day. A little philosophy and comfort is very good. Religion has it's place in culture (just not in government, but that's another topic).
As for creating my own religion... heheh... I always did have a theatrical side.
[ April 24, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we have no reason to think that they would exist from what we have observed in the world around us.
How did we leap from "I don't know how we got here" to "It must be a loving personal God with a name that I can understand"?
We anthropomorphize everything... we give names to our cars and pets, we attribute human thoughts and feelings to things that are not only not human but not even living. We are creators...and thus assume the phsyical world must have been created by a sentient thing.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say "we" because I'm not the only person to think like this... and I say "we" because no physical evidence exists anywhere for society to study that proves that the divine exist.
[ April 25, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if seeking after the divine by using scientific methods, or by demanding that the divine prove itself through 'physical evidence' is rather like demanding proof of evolution through the medium of mechancial engineering.
Both disciplines require the application of logic, observation, and discipline-- but one does not necessarily lead to the other.
Nor do they contradict one another-- they only clash when someone insists on using a microscope to build an engine.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't going to look but temptation got the best of me, and yes, there are still posts coming to this thread.
Well, as for me I had a lousy weekend. My gut was inside out and I felt that everyone who looked at me knew what a jerk I was on Hatrack.
I truely feel bad that I offended people, especially people I do not know. This has plagued me all weekend.
For the record:
1) I do not believe in doing good to reap a reward in the hereafter. Conversely, I believe in doing good as a reflection of what God would do, or have me do. Obviously, I have a lot of work to do in that department. 2) I wasn't trying to be naive or nconsiderate. In retrospect I did not state my thoughts well at all. Too much chicken noodle soup perhaps? 3) Sometimes attempts at humor do not come across on the internet--as lame attempts as they were.
Regardless, I am deeply saddened that I offended anyone. There is never a justification or need to do so.
I feel I am a better person than I portrayed and for all of these reasons I ask for forgiveness and say farewell.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, rub some grass on it and move on. There may be a reason for you to leave -- I couldn't tell you because I don't know you well enough -- but this wasn't it. I can't think of anyone at Hatrack that hasn't offended someone at some time. Even me!
quote: I wonder if seeking after the divine by using scientific methods, or by demanding that the divine prove itself through 'physical evidence' is rather like demanding proof of evolution through the medium of mechancial engineering.
Except that, for example, some Christian sects say that Jesus is our "lord and personal savior". That the divine is micromanaging each individual life. That is different from a divine that just runs the elements or started the Big Bang. If the divine exist, then it/they are part of the Universe and eventualy we can discover the natural laws of the divine. Or to put another way, any sufficiently advanced science will always be confused with magic/divine.
quote:Both disciplines require the application of logic, observation, and discipline-- but one does not necessarily lead to the other.
Maybe... mmmm... theology can get pretty in depth. However religion also demands "faith"...something the scientific process does not use.
quote:Nor do they contradict one another-- they only clash when someone insists on using a microscope to build an engine.
Well I agree that religion and science are on the same path with a similar goal(s).
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, that the LDS church considers the Aaronic priesthood, in particular, to have needed restoring does not exactly persuade me, given what Jewish records and traditions exist.
I'm pretty sure that there is a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that honors the authority of the Levites by birth. Lemmie see if I can dig it up....
quote: 13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. 14 Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances. 15 The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.
17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
It has always seemed to me that according to Mormon theology, God recognizes the authority of the decendants of Aaron to this day (or descendants of Levi). There is just the small problem of most of them not believing that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and therefore not being particularly interested in being part of this church.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm certain there are a pretty decent number of LDS members who are descendants of Aaron (both direct Jewish converts on occasion and just people of Jewish descent). Are the bishoprics comprised of such people? If not, that passage would seem to hold little sway.
Also, even as you're acknowledging the descendancy of Jews, I don't see an acknowledgement that their priesthood is the same priesthood that has been passed down for thousands of years. That's what I find dubious, this lack of acknowledgement (particularly given all the rhetoric about restoration surrounding the aaronic priesthood's supposed conferral on early LDS leaders).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm certain there are a pretty decent number of LDS members who are descendants of Aaron (both direct Jewish converts on occasion and just people of Jewish descent). Are the bishoprics comprised of such people? If not, that passage would seem to hold little sway.
That verse is specifically refering the Office of Presiding Bishop, of which there is only one in the Church. The person also needs to be found worthy to receive that call. Levitical heritige isn't the sole qualifier.
quote:Also, even as you're acknowledging the descendancy of Jews, I don't see an acknowledgement that their priesthood is the same priesthood that has been passed down for thousands of years. That's what I find dubious, this lack of acknowledgement (particularly given all the rhetoric about restoration surrounding the aaronic priesthood's supposed conferral on early LDS leaders).
You're right - we don't believe that their Priesthood still holds any authority - hence, the restoration of the Priesthood Keys concerning the authorization of that Priesthood.
Just at Catholics hold that their Priesthood and authority is the same as comes through Peter.
We believe both Priesthood became corrupted, and thus needed to be restored pure and undefiled. The titles lost the power associated with them.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hammer, stay. Please. There's no reason to leave, and more honor in staying and still taking part. No one's perfect here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I just just used it because I prefer not to get into more personal details online so I kept it simple.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
