posted
Occasional: While I'm an atheist, I really do wish that I could find some evidence for supernatural or divine existence which could convince me that I'm wrong.
So when I ask a question like that, it isn't to mock, but with sincere chagrin that if such a man exists, which would be a fantastic event I would love to see, that it is not something to which I am privy. I really DO wish that if John the Apostle is still around, he'd make a little noise about it so that I could see.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the phrase "council of the gods" appears. What do you think that means? How many gods? and why does it matter to me?
I do believe John the Beloved tarried, as they say, but I don't really see how it directly affects my salvation other than as an illustration that God's promises are kept, and I certainly don't think it means John is a god.
We are the children of God, but we are not even born yet, as the analogy to earth life goes.
Also, I don't believe there are all these levels of Mormon doctrine. People can develop in one area or another, one direction or another, but everyone can exercise their privilege of revelation according to their own faith and requirements.
I suppose it would be fair to grant that I'm going with a particular definition of "god" that perhaps Joseph Smith was not: someone who I should worship. If anyone is arguing that Smith meant more than the three known beings of the Godhead, what definition was he using?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think John needs to be proven by scientific means. It is a miracle, which by definition cannot be explained by natural means. In order to disprove it, you would have to show that every single man on the planet hasn't lived for 2000 years.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking for myself, something on the order of an immortal apostle would meet my criteria for something that, if I became convinced of its reality, would persuade me to join a given religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, the council of gods has little to do with worship-worthiness. Only the Father is the source of worship-worthiness; the Son and Holy Ghost are only worthy of worship due to the fact that they share an indwelling relationship of love with the Father. Visit NewCoolThang.com if you really want to understand the answers to the questions you are asking.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
The thread was about polytheism, hence a strictly materialistic assumption is somewhat out of place. It would seem to be begging the question, since in a discussion of theology, to assume materialism is to assume that which has not been agreed upon. The argument for materialism is, of course, recursive and not capable of being proven.
Same with the Noah question. There are certainly ancient stories of widespread devastating floods, which could form the nucleus of the Noah story. The Ba'hai have an interpretation that it is a spiritual allegory based on real people, and OSC has written a Pastwatch story about a reinterpretation of Noah. To say there was no Noah because our current genome wouldn't reveal it seems like a foolish oversimplification. A more cautious approach is to see if there is some element of truth in ancient stories, such as the American Indian stories of a widespread, devastating flood. Could there have been a period of flooding, both in the near east and in north america, giving rise to the flood stories? Or are these discrete floods? There is certainly a world-wide tradition to explain, and retreating to "it couldn't happen" is disrespectful of the traditions.
So there are various witnesses to John continuing to live. He is not viewed as immortal but rather in a different state between immortality and mortality. That is a religious tradition or myth, and as such should be respected as its own story.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I don't think John needs to be proven by scientific means. It is a miracle, which by definition cannot be explained by natural means. In order to disprove it, you would have to show that every single man on the planet hasn't lived for 2000 years.
A miracle might not be able to be explained by natural means, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be shown.
If we can find a 2,000 year old person, we wouldn't necessarily be able to explain scientifically HOW he is able to live so long and be impervious to boiling oil, but we could certainly test his age and dunk him in boiling oil to verify those claims.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Speaking for myself, something on the order of an immortal apostle would meet my criteria for something that, if I became convinced of its reality, would persuade me to join a given religion.
You'd be surprised how an immortal apostle would do little for you when a religion's requirements become too difficult to perform or to understand.
Although maybe John reads these forums and is en route to your house. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Do you think that people who don't follow your religion have an easier time? It seems to me, it could be argued that those who don't believe in a religion, but still live a meaningful, virtuous life might already be familiar with the sort of difficulty that you are talking about and have been able to handle it just fine.
For myself, an immortal apostle would make me challenge much of what I thought and make me more receptive to that particular religion, but, ultimately, it's a demonstration of power, not righteousness. An evil deity could do it just as well as a good one. To be worthy, I think that decision is one that should be made without preference to power.
Too many people in this world already worship evil gods.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I guess I have to say that the most popular theory about John's immortality is not possible.
Sure, I can get behind that...with only small boring caveats
lynn johnson:
Short answer: I think you're reading a lot more into my answer than actually was there. I was just roughly assessing the probability of different events as Threads described them, a literal creation story, an actual literal Noah's Ark, and a immortal apostle with no real relationship to the OP. If you want to start comparing the likelihood of an partially allegorical Ark, an allegorical creation story, and an allegorical immortal story, all power to you. Its just that its outside of the scope of my post.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB, Do you think that people who don't follow your religion have an easier time? It seems to me, it could be argued that those who don't believe in a religion, but still live a meaningful, virtuous life might already be familiar with the sort of difficulty that you are talking about and have been able to handle it just fine.
I'm not sure what your point is Squicky. Why should an unbeliever be especially prepared to submit their will into the hands of another being who often communicates and commands in a manner far different then what most people are used to?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You were talking about how your religion's commands would become too difficult to perform. It sounds to me like you are claiming following your religion is the harder path.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think the cigarette companies are still in business?
Just because we know something is bad for us-- even from an empirical, scientific point of view-- does not mean that we change our behavior to exterminate that bad thing.
I think that's what BB is getting at.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB, Do you think that people who don't follow your religion have an easier time? It seems to me, it could be argued that those who don't believe in a religion, but still live a meaningful, virtuous life might already be familiar with the sort of difficulty that you are talking about and have been able to handle it just fine.
I'm not sure what your point is Squicky. Why should an unbeliever be especially prepared to submit their will into the hands of another being who often communicates and commands in a manner far different then what most people are used to?
And you're right. The immortal Jew, or any sort of miracle, wouldn't necessarily push me into a religion. Because it's not one questions. It's two.
Number one, do I believe in a given deity? Number two, will I worship that deity?
Miracles can only, potentially, answer question one.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, those questions are in the wrong order.
As I read this thread I am intrigued by the balance/conflict/intersection of two ways of thinking about religion (for people of faith). One is the "human beings had the truth once and we need to preserve/reinstate that truth" idea. The other (which is where I tend to fall is the "as we learn more and build on the foundations of those who came before, we come closer to the truth than in the past" idea.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the idea is that when the Savior was here, he brought the truth with him. That's the ideal that was left.
So, your statement should rather read: "Jesus Christ gave human beings the truth once and we need to preserve/reinstate that truth." in order to be an accurate summary.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, That seems like a pretty presumptious judgement to make about a specific person, like BB did to Tom. It's also clearly false when talking about all people, rather than many people.
My point is that a virtuous atheist or similar, having already developed a commitment to internal virtue, it seems like they'd have a relatively easy time if they start following an external deity that also wants them to be virtuous.
I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, your statement should rather read: "Jesus Christ gave human beings the truth once and we need to preserve/reinstate that truth." in order to be an accurate summary.
In that case, would things that Jesus didn't talk about/condemn not be part of the truth?
That is, if his message encompassed perfect truth, then clearly anything outside it would have to be not the truth.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't commenting so much on the source of the truth, but human understanding of it.
Javert, I was just noting that, for me, the nature of God is a more fundamental question than the existence of God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the miscommunication here is a complete role reversal.
(Some, possibly BB) religious people may believe that it is harder to follow the dictates of their religion and that it would be "easier" to fall into disbelief, to give into sin, or whatever they may call it.
On the other hand, (possibly Squickly) some non-religious people (and many times I can sympathise with this) sometimes feel that it is easier to give up your independence and submit to an authority or movement, whether their beliefs are arbitrary or not. That it is remarkably tempting to give into the absolute knowledge about life that a religion/cult can give you. In fact, I seem to recall that certain cults have an explicit procedure of love bombing and then revealing arbitrary knowledge that must be explicitly accepted in an initiation to continue.
In an aside, it is my theory that less drastic forms of this principle are at work in secular places like the Cultural Revolution and Mao's Red Book or non-secular places like the greater propensity for first generation Chinese immigrants to Canada, now free of the CPP, to join religion at much greater levels than the background CBC (or second generation) population, that many people *want* to be lead, that nearly limitless freedom is literally something to be feared to them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Or maybe they've met a number of atheists who lack the internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
The mistake may be to blame the philosophy that "freed" them from the standard of morality rather than chalk it up to immaturity, but it isn't necessary to, you know, slander the theists in order for to account for the assumption.
quote:that many people *want* to be lead, that nearly limitless freedom is literally something to be feared to them.
Alternately, they feel like they've been deprived of spiritual knowledge and the Spirit and are absolutely longing for a connection with their Heavenly Father.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, I was just noting that, for me, the nature of God is a more fundamental question than the existence of God.
I can understand that, but for me the question of god never comes up. I just look for the nature of what it is to be good (for me, anyway). So when the question of god does come up, I look for the existence first.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Alternately, they feel like they've been deprived of spiritual knowledge and the Spirit and are absolutely longing for a connection with their Heavenly Father.
That doesn't explain a delta in propensity to join authoritarian religion between first and second generation immigrants. If it was simply a matter of being spiritually disconnected then the rate should be the same between the two generations. There clearly is a mechanism in effect here that has to be explained.
The traditional wisdom is that these people's religions were repressed in China and that they are now free to explore it here. However, in the second generation people tend to absorb more of the secular Canadian culture.
My alternative theory is that despite leaving China, many people like the certainty of thought that the CPP gave them and quickly latch onto a replacement. The second generation doesn't inherit or "miss" this certainty and thus tend back toward to background levels.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or maybe they've met a number of atheists who lack the internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
I have no idea why that would be relevant. If you are talking about how all people are (or "human nature" as people seem to like to talk about), then experiences with some people aren't really enough to say how all people are.
quote:The mistake may be to blame the philosophy that "freed" them from the standard of morality rather than chalk it up to immaturity, but it isn't necessary to, you know, slander the theists in order for to account for the assumption.
This part is also not what I'm talking about. People are not talking abuot the philosophy doing things, but rather the lack of a belief. Oftentimes, this is termed as how they think they themselves would behave if they didn't believe in God.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are failing to account for their morality and instead are imagining what they would be without the morality they've attached themselves in order to say they have no morality of their own.
Both you and Black Blade are judging the other side by yourself and failing to account for the other's situation and hence neither are saying anything relevant. There's no light here.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I think St. John lays low because he's probably tired of people stabbing him all the time to prove he's immortal. But that's just a guess. In general, I'd say that in order for him to have that wish in the first place, he must have different ideas of what's important from me. Not in a better or worse way, of course.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That seems like a pretty presumptious judgement to make about a specific person, like BB did to Tom. It's also clearly false when talking about all people, rather than many people.
I don't think that BB was actually asserting that Tom, personally, would have a problem with following God, should God meet Tom's criteria.
I also don't think that BB was talking about "all people." I think these are conclusions you, Squicky, have drawn about BB's post, and I don't see much support for them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are failing to account for their morality and instead are imagining what they would be without the morality they've attached themselves in order to say they have no morality of their own.
Err...no, I'm taking what they themselves are saying, although I'm not completely taking it at face value. I don't actually think that most of them, if they lost their faith in God, would really go out and do the terrible things that they say they will do or that they say all people without faith in God will do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is that a virtuous atheist or similar, having already developed a commitment to internal virtue, it seems like they'd have a relatively easy time if they start following an external deity that also wants them to be virtuous.
It depends on what you mean by virtue. To go back to my analogy: even when confronted by empirical evidence that smoking is bad-- and even deadly-- for you, many people continue to smoke.
It'd be much more difficult (I think) to convince people to stop smoking WITHOUT empirical evidence.
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
I don't think that you are qualified to make this kind of character judgment. I don't think anyone is capable of making this kind of character judgment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no idea why that would be relevant. If you are talking about how all people are (or "human nature" as people seem to like to talk about), then experiences with some people aren't really enough to say how all people are.
Sufficient, no. But hardly irrelevant.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you are quaified to make that judgement about my ability to make that judgement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do not have the ability to read the minds or judge the hearts of anyone who isn't you. Are you claiming to be able to do so?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: To go back to my analogy: even when confronted by empirical evidence that smoking is bad-- and even deadly-- for you, many people continue to smoke.
It'd be much more difficult (I think) to convince people to stop smoking WITHOUT empirical evidence.
Unless they had other reasons not to smoke or weren't inclined to smoke in the first place or thought it smelled bad or was too expensive...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do not have the ability to read the minds or judge the hearts of anyone who isn't you. Are you claiming to be able to do so?
No, of course I'm not.
edit: But again, you are responding to things that no one has said.
I'm going to ask you again to have the respect to keep your tone civil and try to address what I've actually said.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: To go back to my analogy: even when confronted by empirical evidence that smoking is bad-- and even deadly-- for you, many people continue to smoke.
It'd be much more difficult (I think) to convince people to stop smoking WITHOUT empirical evidence.
Unless they had other reasons not to smoke or weren't inclined to smoke in the first place or thought it smelled bad or was too expensive...
Yes, it's pretty tough to get people to stop smoking if they never start.
But even with other motivations to stop smoking, I think that the empirical evidence still helps motivate them to want to stop even more.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
This judgment requires intimate knowledge of someone's thoughts and character, beyond what I believe human beings are normally capable of.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps we could start but not calling other people - or important aspects of other people - immature.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew some people who said that all the hoopla about smoking being bad for you was basically a government conspiracy. I mean, they didn't use the word conspiracy, but they basically saw it as a bunch of lies and felt that if smoking were so deadly, wouldn't they be dead already? They weren't really able to articulate what the no-smoking-niks had to gain from their interference.
I'm just saying there are apparently people willing to disbelieve commonly held "facts" on a variety of subjects, that not everyone misbehaves in a baldly defiant way.
Of course, I'm not sure which side of the argument this whole smoking analogy is supposed to fall.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
