No I wouldn't. I wouldn't discount the experience to the person who experienced it, but a major point to my example is that it offers God the opportunity to provide exactly what so many theists claim they have experienced; A nontransferable experience that proves to them, and only them, that God exists.
It also bypasses the inherent difficulty of trying to decide whether the proof can be accepted rationally. That is, "Is this really proof? Or is it just a coincidence? Or am I just insane?"
I've already been witnessed to by countless theists who claim to have gone through this type of experience. Some of them seem more genuine than others, but it seems to me that all of them share a basic need for some kind of meaning to their lives that they can't find in the "natural" world. More than anything, it is the constant barrage of attempts to convert me that convince me that theism is not based in the existence of a god, but in the needs of those people to believe in that god.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Christian values are shared even by atheists in our society, and they are in a significant part responsible for our being a much more ethical culture than those in the past.
Seems to me that Positive values are shared by even Christians. Unless you want to claim that nobody was good before Christianity came along.
quote:There would be no freedom of religion, for one thing - there are mroe than enough fanatics even with the little proof we have.
Why would anyone need freedom of religion, if everyone knew the right one? The reason freedom of religion is so important now is that everyone is convinced that all the other religions are false, and wouldn't want to be forced into a false religion.
I would think that if God were obvious to everyone, there would be very little of what we now call religion. Not many people worship Rain or The Sun any more, we know how they work, and we live with them.
I tend to believe that were there a Christian God, and if God took a personal, day to day hand in life on earth, things would be universally better, because God would direct people away from their bad behaviors, and teach them good behavior.
Like the difference between a child who is a spoiled brat delinquent, and a child who has been taught to behave and respect others by parental discipline and teaching. Maybe the child who has free reign thinks it's great to do whatever he wants, but the child who is being taught good manners and behavior is better off in the long run, and is better able to function in society.
If God is truly Good, Wise, etc. then being present and obvious in our lives can only be a good thing, by the very definition of God.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is safe to suppose that among all the theists out there, there is at least a part that believes in a vengeful deity. Among those, at least a part did some “bad” at some point in their life. Among them, there is a part that acknowledges that they (each one for oneself) did that “wrong”, therefore deserves punishment from that deity. And among those, there is at least a part that fears that punishment.
Isn’t it ironic that those that fear “facing their deity” are among those that truly believe in it?
I say it is ironic as long as all those that need religion in their life do so because they have a better life because of it.
quote:Like the difference between a child who is a spoiled brat delinquent, and a child who has been taught to behave and respect others by parental discipline and teaching. Maybe the child who has free reign thinks it's great to do whatever he wants, but the child who is being taught good manners and behavior is better off in the long run, and is better able to function in society.
God has already taught us how to behave and respect others, even without being blatant about it.
What we are talking about is more akin to the child not only being taught by the parent, but also knowing for certain that the parent is there with them every moment of their lives, listening to everything they say, seeing everything they do, preparing to punish and/or reward them for good and/or bad behavior, and controlling everything that happens to them. That is, essentially, what God does. I don't think such a child would be happy, and I definitely don't think they would ever grow up into what they could be, because any indepedence they would hope to have would be countered by an ever-present need to obey the parent who is constantly watching, judging, and helping them. Furthermore, they would blame anything bad that happens to them and attribute anything good that happens to them to God, because God controls all things around them, including themselves.
A parent who is forever present controlling every aspect of a child's life may be preventing that child from becoming a delinquent, but they are also preventing that child from becoming anything at all, other than purely an extension of the parent. Perhaps some would consider this an ideal existence, if the parent were infinitely wise and benevolent toward the child. In fact, if happiness and safety were the only fundamental goods in this world, that might be true - because God could definitely make us happy and safe by controlling everything about us. It would also be true if acting morally and wisely was the ultimate goal of human kind. It would even be true if the sole purpose of mankind was to praise God. However, I don't agree that any of those are the ultimate ends. I think God's plan is probably aiming towards something else - something that is woven into Christianity in a very fundamental way. I think it is the beauty of the human condition - the inherent value of our lives and struggles, no matter how meek and lowly we may be - that justifies our existence as it is, rather than how it could be if God was more obvious about his presence. I think a more active God could undermine that value.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Humor me and TRY to come up with at least one honest draw back for a God that actively makes his presence known on a regular basis to people he is trying to make better.
There isn't one. Not a single drawback. Period. Any claims of potential drawbacks are sour grapes from people who are struggling to reconcile the invisibility and inaccessibility of a fictional God with their own belief in His omnipresent benevolence.
I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe. But hey, I don't put too much stock in my own guesses regarding peoples motives.
MC: I enjoyed reading your post. I agree that most religions say, "Join the club now, or you are damned after you are dead." Some people believe it so much that they agonize over the prospect of their childrens salvation when they die moments after birth unbaptized.
I briefly dated a Jewish girl and after discussing the nature of the soul I found out she did not believe I had one. Now I don't know where in their scriptures it says that non believers do not posess souls, but that is what she firmly believed, and I personally was unsure of how things worked and it bothered me that I didnt have a grasp of what the nature of mortality is, or our purpose.
quote: If there is an all powerful and supremely good God, then it makes sense that life knowing this God, and basking in his glory, both in this temporal world and in any possible future existence, would be infinitely better than life without the complete goodness and love of such a being. If that is the case, I would think that this God would want everyone to experience that.
Because everyone does not experience this supreme love and union with God, something is obviously wrong with the picture. Either God is not all powerful, or is not all loving, or does not want what is best for all people, or does not exist as described.
I found these arguements very compelling and quite interesting to read. I agree that a God that loves perfectly would want all his children to obtain the benefits of his wisdom and his presence. I know not the reason why God seems to have put so much of the responsibility of spreading his word on human shoulders. All I know is that, I suppose I could guess that it is because it helps cultivate selflessness if people share the good they have found with others. Indeed it is taught within my church, "It becomes everyone that has been warned to warn their neighbor." I am sure you remember these words from another book, "Doth a man light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay but on a candle stick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house."
I stand by my statements I have made previously. If there was a God however mysterious his ways were, and he had a plan designed to maximize our happiness, it would be the most important thing that could be known. Even if facimile's and false men/women lead us astray as we sought this way we ought to keep looking. Sure we can blame the designer of the plan that the players in the game make it difficult, but we don't gain anything from it.
<b>We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing, as well as understanding why our experiences were thus.</b>
I cannot pass judgement on your experiences MC as I did not personally experience them. All I know is is that I once believed that if there was a God he would not answer my prayers. It frustrated me as the docterine I had been taught all my life made perfect sense as far as I could tell, but what is "sense" if I do not know its true? Alot of religions had good ideas that made sense, why should mine be suddenly right?
One day I decided to come to a conclusion on the matter. I made the determination that if I did not get an affirmative answer I would cease to espouse the religion I had been raised within. I studied the scriptures and strove to understand them, I tried my best to apply them within my life and to establish a speaking relationship with God. After having read through all the scriptures I had determined that they were most likely true and one evening I laid it all out and prayed for divine guidance. I prayed for hours and hours and hours and nothing happened. I was frustrated and hurt because I felt I had upheld my end of the bargain.
Finally I prayed requesting that if I was not yet ready to have an answer that I would know what I could do.
A few days later I was in church still wondering what I had done wrong, or if in fact the answer to my question was no. I was doodling and not paying attention to the speaker when for some reason my attention was grabbed by the speaker as he said,
"You can beg and plead for an answer all you can, and yet you will not receive and answer until it is the right time."
It was not a miracle but it was certainly unusual that my attention was so snatched, I have never had that happen to me since.
I kept up my study of the scriptures and started reading the Book of Mormon again as I felt it demonstrated my humility if I started reading it again dispite getting no answer. Just a few days later as I was talking to somebody about my experience with the gospel I was talking about how I sincerely hoped that it was all true but that I was not sure. At that moment I felt an intense feeling of affirmation penetrate my entire body. It gave me an awesome feeling of confidence that my hopes were not misplaced. I had never felt that feeling before in my life and I held onto it. It was a beginning for me.
I have felt that feeling grow stronger AND weaker depending on what kind of life I was living. When I do not do as I know I should that feeling grows weak and disappears, and vice versa. There is nothing else in my life that works that way.
Call it a conditioned response, or explain it any way you want, but it was my experience and I have chosen to interpret it thus. Were you to have had my experience I am confident that you would have come to the same conclusion I have.
Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe.
You're probably right. On the other hand, were I to receive a direct and satisfactory answer from God, I'd almost certainly accept it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe.
You're probably right. On the other hand, were I to receive a direct and satisfactory answer from God, I'd almost certainly accept it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I briefly dated a Jewish girl and after discussing the nature of the soul I found out she did not believe I had one. Now I don't know where in their scriptures it says that non believers do not possess souls, but that is what she firmly believed . . .
Nowhere. But if she'd had a better grasp of what her religion actually says, she wouldn't have been dating outside it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe.
You're probably right. On the other hand, were I to receive a direct and satisfactory answer from God, I'd almost certainly accept it.
I would probably think I was having delusions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the definition of the word "satisfactory" includes a lack of ambiguity. God should not be easily mistaken for a bit of excess flatulence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Her religion and yours may have a lot in common, but her religion is not yours, and hers allows her to date whomever she thinks it allows her to date.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How exactly (Ebeneezer) would you recognize the differene between direct communication from God and psychosis? That's why it isn't a matter of "evidence".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How exactly (Ebeneezer) would you recognize the differene between direct communication from God and psychosis? That's why it isn't a matter of "evidence".
Evidently the God you describe is not all powerful as he is "unable" to communicate in such a way as to be reasonably believed.
Just because thousands of people mistake a supernatural occurence, or even more so an event that cannot be explained wrongly as God sent, does not warrant the conclusion that God is inept or unable to communicate with us in such a manner as to remove all reasonable doubt.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet that opinion is right. Her religion is her own; you are no authority on it.
You might be able to tell her what you think the religious authorities she respects would say on the matter, or you might be able to tell her what you think the religious texts she believes in say on the issue. But you cannot tell her what she believes, unless it is necessarily implied by something else she admits believing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How exactly (Ebeneezer) would you recognize the differene between direct communication from God and psychosis? That's why it isn't a matter of "evidence".
Evidently the God you describe is not all powerful as he is "unable" to communicate in such a way as to be reasonably believed.
Just because thousands of people mistake a supernatural occurence, or even more so an event that cannot be explained wrongly as God sent, does not warrant the conclusion that God is inept or unable to communicate with us in such a manner as to remove all reasonable doubt.
The limitation is in our senses, not in God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, ultimately, the limitation is in logic. God can't be perfectly good and also communicate everything to us that we'd like to know in the way we'd like to hear it if doing so will result in greater evil.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The limitation is in our senses, not in God.
I can think of a dozen ways off-hand that God could demonstrate His existence to my satisfaction within the limitations of my senses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: She seemed to subscribe to quite a strict brand of Judaism. She had to say special prayers before eating certain kinds of bread, as well as saying specific prayers in the morning and the evening at sunrise and sunset.
I do not know enough about Judaism to say what she was exactly.
kmbboots: God designed our senses, you are still limiting his powers either by stating that our senses are inadequate, or that God fails to utilize them properly.
Having said that, are you so sure that you have plumbed the dephths of your senses? What if there was a sense designed COMPLETELY for communications from God. Not that our other senses COMPLETELY miss it, just like our skin feels the heat, our eyes see the fire, our noses smell the burning, and our ears hear the flickering. The sun is seen and felt but not heard. Is it not possible that there is an entirely different sense that detects communications from God that is also felt, or somtimes seen or heard?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
You did imply that you know what her religion says better than she did, didn't you? If so, and you don't think that you know what she believes better than she does, then you must mean you think her religion is something other than what she believes. How is that possible? Only if you think her religion is not determined by what she believes.
I think that is a dangerous way for religious people to think. It is the notion that, because I call myself "Christian" and "Methodist", I must believe whatever the Methodist church and Christianity in general say I should believe. That is an abdication of personal responsibility. If your church or other religious authorities tell you that you need to blow up American buildings, that doesn't mean you need to believe it too in order to be true to your religion. Similarly, but to a much less dangerous degree, if you church or other religious authorities tell you that you can't date outside you religion, that doesn't mean you need to believe that either. I think religion is a fundamentally personal thing, and while churches, religious leaders, and other authorities (including religious texts) are necessary as guides, they should never be blindly accepted and given the authority to overrule your own judgement when you think they are clearly wrong.
That is the corollary to what I said earlier about the need to accept authorities who know more than you. While you should recognize the need to trust authorities (religious and other authorities) when they know more than you, you still must use your judgement to try and see when they are leading you astray or when they may not truly know more than you. You can't blindly follow any authority. And you should not consider your religion to be ultimately determined by other people, texts, or authorities. That is usually when common sense goes out the window, and religion can be distorted into something harmful that it shouldn't be.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only marrying another Jew is a BIG deal in Judaism -- and not just in Orthodox Judaism either.
The other things you describe (blessings over food, praying three times a day) are consistent with Orthodox or traditional Conservative. (Although you didn't specify whether she kept kosher or Shabbos, which are more significant.)
Dating outside the faith is NOT consistent with either.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Only marrying another Jew is a BIG deal in Judaism -- and not just in Orthodox Judaism either.
The other things you describe (blessings over food, praying three times a day) are consistent with Orthodox or traditional Conservative. (Although you didn't specify whether she kept kosher or Shabbos, which are more significant.)
Dating outside the faith is NOT consistent with either.
She certainly kept Kosher. She also had a prearranged marriage for when she came of age.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.
This seems to me to be a testable assertion. What would you say if MC dies without hearing from your god, having made a good-faith effort to listen?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, seriously. Would that not be evidence against your faith? Are you really going to just slide out with a weak joke?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, seriously. Would that not be evidence against your faith? Are you really going to just slide out with a weak joke?
I'm not sliding out of anything.
I have said time and time again that if there is a God you have much to gain by sincerely keeping an open mind to his existance. If there is no God you still gain from cultivating an open mind to ideas you are not used to. Certainly you can appreciate the merits of keeping an open mind to ideas that are not the most common.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: God has already taught us how to behave and respect others, even without being blatant about it.
I would argue that this is untrue. God has not taught us how to behave. Various religious doctrines have all claimed to have God's teachings, while often teaching very different and inconsistent ways to behave and respect others.
I'm not advocating God leading people around by the hand, but I do believe that if a God exists, and cares about our beliefs and actions, and has the power to do so, such a God should make clear how we should act, not by dropping off a bunch of writings thousands of years ago, but by actively participating in the lives of people.
My mother doesn't follow me around and watch over me and tell me what to do, but when I was a child she taught me right from wrong personally and in a clear, inconsistent way. She didn't just leave a bunch of contradictory notes around the house and expect me to guess which ones were true.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:She was young and confused. And possibly rebelling.
Or she knew exactly what she was doing and did it because she thought it was best, given her religious beliefs.
quote:I'm not advocating God leading people around by the hand, but I do believe that if a God exists, and cares about our beliefs and actions, and has the power to do so, such a God should make clear how we should act, not by dropping off a bunch of writings thousands of years ago, but by actively participating in the lives of people.
I'm not sure it is possible to clearly state how we should act, without stepping in to individual tell us what to do in every situation we face. Right and wrong are far too complicated.
God has given us some pretty clear rules, though. There is the ten commandments. More importantly, though, there are some very clear messages sent through the stories we have about Christ. Love God. Love thy neighbor. I suspect we would act better if we were to take these principles and try to understand them, than if we were given a clear delineated set of things to do and were told to follow them roboticly.
And while there are many different religions that give many different explanations of how to behave, I don't think there is any way to avoid that without either taking away our ability to come up with out own ideas or without making His presence very blatant in our world. Even within a single religion, even within people who accept a set of rules like the 10 Commandments, there are widely varying beliefs about how to apply them to real life questions.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, seriously. Would that not be evidence against your faith? Are you really going to just slide out with a weak joke?
I'm not sliding out of anything.
I think you are. You began by suggesting that MC would receive a proof of your god's existence. I pointed out that this was testable in principle, and instantly you backpedaled into 'well, an open mind is good for you anyway'. So, again. If MC dies without receiving this revelation that you are so confident of, providing of course that he's made a good-faith effort, what would that say about your faith?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, seriously. Would that not be evidence against your faith? Are you really going to just slide out with a weak joke?
I'm not sliding out of anything.
I think you are. You began by suggesting that MC would receive a proof of your god's existence. I pointed out that this was testable in principle, and instantly you backpedaled into 'well, an open mind is good for you anyway'. So, again. If MC dies without receiving this revelation that you are so confident of, providing of course that he's made a good-faith effort, what would that say about your faith?
I never once backed down in my suggestion that MC could receive an answer from God. You are trying to steer me into making an affirmative statement as to WHEN that would occur. I am not going to try to speak for God, and suggest how he does things. Nor will I suggest that the way he answered my querie is the formula by which all will receive His affirmation. I CANNOT argue persuasively that a man/woman will receive an answer today, tomorrow, in a week, in a month, in a year, in a decade, in a lifetime an answer from God. All I have is God's promise that the answer will come. In my case it took 19 years, but to be more accurate several weeks of conssertive study and contemplation.
Were MC to spend his life waiting and believing and yet receiving NO answer whatsoever, barring even the smallest glimmer of hope from God that he exists. I leave the explanation in his hands, I cannot possibly understand who MC is or God's methods to the point that I could explain God's motives.
I've said that were I proved absolutely wrong, I would probably be unable to be sure of anything again because of the power of my own experience.
Of course I would feel foolish for having believed so strongly, for having devoted so much time and effort to a falsehood, however good my intentions. Knowing that I had provided people with a supposed sense of comfort that lacked substance, or worse a means by which they could justify misdeeds; that would hurt me. But I am sure that that will never be the case.
Having said all that KOM I do not expect you to offer a response to the same situation were it reveresed in my favor, but I have acknowledged the possibility that I might be wrong, and even how I would feel were I proven wrong.
Doubtless you will feel little guilt upon finding out that there IS a God. Would you simply say, "Its not my fault I didn't believe, he didnt do a good enough job persuading me?"
quote:I am not going to try to speak for God, and suggest how he does things.
No? Then what are these?
quote:Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.
quote:"And when she shall receive these things I would exhort you that you would ask God the eternal father in the name of Christ if things are not true....he will manifest the truthfulness of these things unto you by the power of the holy ghost"
quote:Karl Ed: Moroni does not say "Read, Ponder, and Pray" he says "Receive these things, and pray." Alma very literally espouses studying and action, with the absolutely positive results of the experiment being the beginnings of proof, which should give you confidence to ask God.
quote:I KNOW God is capable of convincing anybody sufficiently that his way is the right way. It remains for the individual to allow him that window of opportunity.
quote:I never once backed down in my suggestion that MC could receive an answer from God.
But you have plainly backed away from stating that it would be before his death. And if it's going to be in some sort of afterlife, then there won't be any need for prayer, will there? Obviously, if an afterlife exists, then there will be empirical evidence of a god. Further, as I understand your doctrine, someone who does not accept your god before their death is given a lesser glory, yes? So is MC condemned to the lesser glory, having made a good faith effort all through his life, merely becaue your god does not feel like giving him a sign? Not very nice, is it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing, as well as understanding why our experiences were thus.
I'm not at all sure this is exactly true. I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that no man can serve two masters. At some point you have to make a decision about what you believe, and start acting on those beliefs. Every ounce of effort you spend "keeping an open mind" about a potential falsehood is an ounce of effort stolen from searching for the truth. If you're out of gas on a lonely country road and you knock loud and long at the first farmhouse and no one comes to the door, at some point you become a fool for not moving on to the next one. Sure, one more knock might wake someone at that house, but it's just as likely that house is empty.
"You'll get an answer, someday" is a cop-out for those who need to believe that God has given them some sort of Universal Truth. It's the loophole that allows believers to lay all responsibility on the un-believer for his unbelief. "You will get an answer. You have to be sincere. You have to be patient. No, more patient than that. Well maybe you won't get one in this lifetime, but God always answers." Loophole after loophole.
For all the "keep an open mind" that is being preached in this thread, it seems to me that its the non-religious who are most open minded. To a man we've maintained that there are possible ways that God could reveal himself to us. The question above about being open-minded enough to entertain the possiblity that there is no God went ignored. The thing is, MC, Tom, and myself have had the same experience that you have had. We had questions and need of enlightenment from God. We did what we believed necessary to gain that enlightenment. Maybe the insight we gained was that God isn't what most believers say he is, and that all organized religion is false (not to speak for MC or Tom on specifics). How is it less open-minded of us to go forward with our lives, building on that insight, than it is for you to go on with yours clinging to the insight you gained from that experience?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Concerning the "having the answer during this lifetime" issue, I have a new "pack" of questions:
Does the "afterlife" have any meaning outside religion? Is believing that "life" doesn't end with the physical death equivalent to religion? Can there be religion if there is (demonstrably) no "afterlife"?
And, not only for the atheists ( ): Do you believe in "afterlife"?
My answer:
I think this concept was introduced as a means of control by those that “brought” religion in society. (i.e. It makes you fear the consequences of your actions till the moment you die). As a bonus, it explains “what is there after death”? (Obviously an afterlife). Plus, it is a loophole for rational arguments (as pointed out by KarlEd). Yet it seems to me that the concept still has to be proven scientifically in order to cease being just a matter of faith.
I am sure that this “life” is not all there is to existence, and that even if my consciousness as I know it will cease at the moment of my death, there is something more, very possibly in a form that I cannot even imagine right now. I am sure I am part of something bigger, that I fail to see using my present senses. Luckily I found enough meaning to this here existence as it is, not to lose more time in worrying about “what is there outside it?”. I’ll find out soon enough (if not too soon) anyway.
posted
Does the "afterlife" have any meaning outside religion?
This is begging definition of "religion" again. (See "religion" vs "a religion" discussion near the beginning.) If you're talking about "religion" as opposed to "science", then no. If you're asking can a non-theist still entertain the possibility of a non-theistic afterlife, then sure. I'm one who does.
Is believing that "life" doesn't end with the physical death equivalent to religion?
If I understand Tresopax correctly, "religion" is almost equivalent to "metaphysics", (as opposed to "a religion" implying organization, formality and/or community). In that regard, all questions of Life After Death are religious questions. (But also, in that sense, atheistic opinions are religious ones, too.)
Can there be religion if there is (demonstrably) no "afterlife"?
Sure, why not? I think there are many religions which do not espouse an "afterlife" in the sense that Christianity does.
Do you believe in "afterlife"?
As I said above, I "hold out the possibility of an afterlife", but I would not say that I believe in one. I hope there is one, of some sort, but hoping doesn't make it so. At this point in my life I find it much more productive to act as if this time in this universe is all that I have, regardless.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this concept was introduced as a means of control by those that “brought” religion in society.
I think this concept came about naturally as a by-product of the grief of losing loved ones.
quote:I am sure that this “life” is not all there is to existence, and that even if my consciousness as I know it will cease at the moment of my death, there is something more, very possibly in a form that I cannot even imagine right now. I am sure I am part of something bigger, that I fail to see using my present senses.
If we think of this universe as a 4 dimensional object, (or more), it's entirely possible that it is an eternal entity of some sort. It's possible that this moment (and all moments in our timestream) exist simultaneously from this outside perspective and that we are - each one of us - eternal, existing as threads within this entity. I find this idea comforting, even if it does imply an eventual end to my own experience of traveling along my own 4 dimensional thread.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I briefly dated a Jewish girl
How old were you?
Edited to add: I'm asking because I can't imagine anyone who kept the commandments wanting to seriously date someone who would not. But if you were really young, maybe that kind of thing didn't occur to her.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, I would.
quote:I am not going to try to speak for God, and suggest how he does things.
No? Then what are these?
quote:Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.
quote:"And when she shall receive these things I would exhort you that you would ask God the eternal father in the name of Christ if things are not true....he will manifest the truthfulness of these things unto you by the power of the holy ghost"
quote:Karl Ed: Moroni does not say "Read, Ponder, and Pray" he says "Receive these things, and pray." Alma very literally espouses studying and action, with the absolutely positive results of the experiment being the beginnings of proof, which should give you confidence to ask God.
quote:I KNOW God is capable of convincing anybody sufficiently that his way is the right way. It remains for the individual to allow him that window of opportunity.
quote:I never once backed down in my suggestion that MC could receive an answer from God.
But you have plainly backed away from stating that it would be before his death. And if it's going to be in some sort of afterlife, then there won't be any need for prayer, will there? Obviously, if an afterlife exists, then there will be empirical evidence of a god. Further, as I understand your doctrine, someone who does not accept your god before their death is given a lesser glory, yes? So is MC condemned to the lesser glory, having made a good faith effort all through his life, merely becaue your god does not feel like giving him a sign? Not very nice, is it?
You've got the docterine almost down KOM. Even within the quotes you have listed you do not see me stating WHEN it will all happen. I never once said it must happen before death, so consequentially I cannot back down from a position I never made. I CAN say that I am confident that a person will get an answer well within his lifetime, but I cannot say it MUST happen in that time period.
You are slightly wrong in your statement that were MC to make a good faith effort his whole life he would still be resigned to a lesser lvl of glory. It does not work that way. Within Mormonism a person is judged based on the truth they posess. MC for example would be judged based on his actions weighed against his own understanding of truth.
Besides all that, once dead EVERYONE regardless of background is presented the truth in such a manner that they cannot deny it without knowing better. If they embrace it, they go on and are placed in equal standing with everybody else who seeks righteousness. Rejection is rejection, you don't have to live with God if you don't want to, and there are other places where with those types of people would be more comfortable.
So no KOM, MC would not be subjected to a lesser lvl in the kingdom merely because God didnt feel like giving him a sign.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I take it back. She wasn't inconsistent. She was young and confused. And possibly rebelling.
I'll accept confused, except that I'd call it curious. Rebelling is a term that is reserved for use by the authority that is being "rebelled" against. The rebellious person is merely exercising their freedom.
I'd say she was testing, or experimenting. Religion, as has already been pointed out, is a very personal, individual thing. There are those for whom being religious means submitting to an authority, and those who believe that religion must stand up to realistic tests in order to be valid.
Why should a jewish person marry (or even date) within the faith? Are gentiles so different? That's an easy thing to test. Then there is that (valid) argument that mixed parenting will invariably undermine one of the parent's belief system, but there are tests to be made there also; "Will he promise to convert and raise our children in my faith?" If so, what's the big deal?
Or perhaps she really felt that BlackBlade might be the right guy for her, and had to check her feelings to determine if her religious beliefs would allow it. Regardless what the results of this test were, it's pretty obvious that her religious beliefs allowed her the option of conducting the test.
quote:I will fight to the death for your right to express your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
I think it's fairly clear that rivka would also fight for hers. Why would you think otherwise? Neither case requires that rivka agree with the opinions expressed.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing, as well as understanding why our experiences were thus.
I'm not at all sure this is exactly true. I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that no man can serve two masters. At some point you have to make a decision about what you believe, and start acting on those beliefs. Every ounce of effort you spend "keeping an open mind" about a potential falsehood is an ounce of effort stolen from searching for the truth. If you're out of gas on a lonely country road and you knock loud and long at the first farmhouse and no one comes to the door, at some point you become a fool for not moving on to the next one. Sure, one more knock might wake someone at that house, but it's just as likely that house is empty.
"You'll get an answer, someday" is a cop-out for those who need to believe that God has given them some sort of Universal Truth. It's the loophole that allows believers to lay all responsibility on the un-believer for his unbelief. "You will get an answer. You have to be sincere. You have to be patient. No, more patient than that. Well maybe you won't get one in this lifetime, but God always answers." Loophole after loophole.
For all the "keep an open mind" that is being preached in this thread, it seems to me that its the non-religious who are most open minded. To a man we've maintained that there are possible ways that God could reveal himself to us. The question above about being open-minded enough to entertain the possiblity that there is no God went ignored. The thing is, MC, Tom, and myself have had the same experience that you have had. We had questions and need of enlightenment from God. We did what we believed necessary to gain that enlightenment. Maybe the insight we gained was that God isn't what most believers say he is, and that all organized religion is false (not to speak for MC or Tom on specifics). How is it less open-minded of us to go forward with our lives, building on that insight, than it is for you to go on with yours clinging to the insight you gained from that experience?
You call them loopholes I call them sound ideas. I hope you don't mind my saying but it seems silly to say that you are in fact MORE open minded, and then argue that you have no reason to be.
Explain to me what is lost by a person being open to the idea that God might one day reveal himself to him/her? You are not being asked to pray, or to constantly think, "Is God trying to speak to me?." You are being asked to be humble enough that when God does actually speak to you, you are not so prideful as to reject him.
You are welcome to just live your life and keep a closed mind to any possibility of the existance of a God, though I am not sure why you think that is such a big upgrade from simply remaining open to the idea. I'm sorry God as yet did not answer your queries in the manner you felt you deserved.
Not ONCE have I said that it was because of a lack of faithfulness, or because you did not, "Try hard enough." Though in fact those are indeed perfectly valid explanations. Explanations that only you and God know the truthfulness of.
You keep arguing that you need not keep an open mind to the existance of a God, and that it is in fact a retardent to a happy existance, and then you argue that you your mind is more open then mine is. You have yet to hear me argue why I do not need to consider the idea that I might be wrong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Explain to me what is lost by a person being open to the idea that God might one day reveal himself to him/her? You are not being asked to pray, or to constantly think, "Is God trying to speak to me?." You are being asked to be humble enough that when God does actually speak to you, you are not so prideful as to reject him.
I think the big problem is the arrogant assumption that we aren't already doing that. No one here has said that they are closed minded to the possibility of God revealing himself to us. In fact we have all said that we can think of many ways in which he might, but that it hasn't happened yet. We've expressed disillusionment with the idea that he works the way you seem to think, but that is hardly shutting him out were he to choose to make himself known.
quote:You keep arguing that you need not keep an open mind to the existance of a God, and that it is in fact a retardent to a happy existance, and then you argue that you your mind is more open then mine is.
I think this is an overstatement of my arguement. I'll admit I could have been a bit clearer, but was not because I didn't want to argue specifics here out of deference to our host's religion. However, since you press it, I think that banging my head against the door of Mormonism would be a detriment to my happiness. I feel that I did more than was required in Moroni's promise and in James, and got nothing. Mormonism isn't easy, and is even less so for a gay male. I'd feel bad if I thought I left the church simply because of personal inconvenience, though. I left because I found myself in desperate need of some kind of conviction that the pain, sacrifice and inner struggle were worth it, and the God of Mormonism left me bloody-knuckled and practically dead (spiritually) at his doorstep. I did reach that crisis of faith, and in the heat of it, I did feel enlightenment and peace, and that enlightenment and peace were inextricably tied to the idea that all that I had been taught about God was untrue, and that either he did not exist or that if he did, he was just fine with my sexuality and my lack of Mormon faith. Since then I believe I have maintained an open mind, looking for "truth" that I could understand and trust. But I do not feel that I need to knock at the door of Mormonism anymore. I'll refer again to my farmhouse metaphor above. At some point in petitioning succor from a mute and lifeless door one becomes a fool to continue.
This probably sounds harsh to you. I'm also sure that you have a thousand opinions at your disposal with which you can rationalize my personal experience. The point is, at no time have I told you that you are a fool for believing what you feel was revelation. I do not think that of you. However, can you see, even a little, why "just keep an open mind" might come across as belittling and trite to some of us? As much as you say you don't speak for God, making excuses for him is speaking for him. "He will in His Own Good Time" is making an excuse for him. Maybe He will in his own good time, but if he does, he will also have to explain "His" answer of 15 years ago.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I suppose that the majority of people, see the religion from the perspective of the possibility to directly communicate (commune?) with some deity. There are theists that base their religiosity on their ability (and experience) of having such a “direct and personal contact” and there are atheist that base their lack of religiosity on the lack of such an experience.
But the possibility of direct communication implies (in my mind) an anthropomorphic deity.
So my question is: Do you see the (eventual) deity as being anthropomorphic?
And more: Does it NEED be anthropomorphic? Isn’t it extremely arrogant of the humans to think that the (perfect!) deity has the same form (yet not necessarily the same qualities)?
Note, I don’t mean here arrogant as a negative attribute, we (as humans) already are the most important living species in the entire Universe, aren’t we? So it may very well be justified. I say it might be a good quality, as it may have played a role in the fact that we haven’t extinguished ourselves yet, and it might be the “force” that will keep us alive a few more eternities …
I think I know what you are driving at for "anthropomorphic" but I think it's the wrong word for your question. That word means "suggesting human characteristics for animals or inanimate objects". Are you asking if God has to be recognizeably "human"? Or are you asking "Does God have to have any recognizeably human characteristics?"
I think if there is to be any personal relationship with him, either he has to have a human-like interface to some degree, or we have to be somehow brought up to His level.
To me "God" would have to have some form of recognizeable intelligence and some way to communicate with him intelligibly else he is no more (or less) than any other force of nature that simply has to be "dealt with". Intelligence and the ability to communicate aren't exclusive to humans, but the degree to which we can do these things are in part what makes us humans, so it's debateable whether these things are "anthropomorphic" or not.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
): Do you believe in "afterlife"?
