Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content Count

    32,788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mfbukowski

  1. This is simply a re-statement of Darwinian Evolution. What a koala or I would call well being may differ, but it is not up to me to agree that I must eat Eucalyptus leaves to stay alive, or find female koalas appealing. But if I was a koala I had better figure out what adds to my "well being" or the entire species might die out in a few months. What we call "morality" is crucial to our species, objectively, for the same reasons. Adultery makes for murderous lovers. Abortion, if universally practiced, would exterminate humanity. Crime in general takes people out of the gene pool. Universal lying could make commerce and contracts impossible, and destroy economies, prosperity and civilization. Immoral societies simply don't survive, they can be destroyed by UN sanctions, war, etc. Their neighbors don't like being invaded or enslaved for some reason. Behaviors which allow for more successful reproduction cause the species to prosper in peace and harmony, behaviors which do not, bring about lower reproduction conditions and so hinder the success of the species. It's all Darwin, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. Darwin produced some of the mental concepts now taken by scientists as "objective evidence" in the resultant paradigm. But that has nothing to do with the spiritual paradigm presented by the church in discussing a different question, WHY did God create humanity. What makes a car run (objective truths) has nothing to do with WHY you need a car in your life. One is a how question the other is a why question
  2. Also,when you are somewhat familiar with family history it is easy to see that virtually every person on Earth could be a member of the House of Israel by birth. Incredibly, all people descended from European stock are descendants of Charlemagne who lives in the 4th century a d. If I have my information right there is a gap of about 2200 years between Jacob who became Israel and Charlemagne. There were 12 sons of Jacob or Israel. Charlemagne was one person. The 12 sons of Israel were reproducing for around 2200 years before Charlemagne was born, and yet every modern European is a descendant of only one person, Charlemagne. Yes it's highly speculative but I would wager that most of the world's population by this point could be direct descendant from some of the sons of Israel or all of them even. Our line of descent in patriarchal blessings, in my belief, are given by revelation solely as a spiritual reminder of our roots and indicating what could be a literal line. And yet I have a personal testimony that they are real prognostications of what we can achieve in our lives. I have seen them work out virtually miraculously too many times to believe otherwise.
  3. Here is another relevant link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_of_being
  4. Yep! As you know, mixing religion and science is a logical error called a category mistake https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
  5. https://www.jewishutah.com/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/2925273/jewish/Tight-knit-Group-of-Jews-Live-in-Utah-Home-to-This-Years-Olympics.htm NEW YORK (Jan. 2002) "Utah is probably the only place where a Jewish political candidate has ever been criticized for being a gentile. On the campaign trail in 1916, Simon Bamberger, who was elected the state’s first and only Jewish governor, had to argue his way into a meeting hall by saying, “As a Jew I’ve been called many a bad name, but this is the first time in my life that I’ve been called a damned gentile.”
  6. I was trying to get him to talk about his beliefs, and have been trying for months, and he would not answer Many here also tried to show him that even requiring accepting Christ as Savior was more "exclusive" than our beliefs, since we believe that after death virtually all will accept Christ, because it will be so obvious! But he did not respond to that approach Finally, he started speaking of his wife's beliefs, and naturally I assumed, as Mennonites, they were the same as his. So I thought I would ask about her beliefs since that was the only Doctrine he would discus. I was trying to show him that we are virtually Universalists, and even accepting the bible as scripture in this life was more "exclusive" than what we require to achieve eternal life. And he took it as insulting his wife? I was dumbfounded. I'm leaving for a bit, I need a vacation from here for a bit. See y'all later!
  7. I am sorry that you feel victimized yet again, but you are the one who picked your wife to be a proxy for your beliefs. It was never about her as far as I am concerned and was never intended to be personal in any way. It was always about your accusations that we are "exclusive" when virtually every active member here tried to tell you that that was inappropriate because it was not true and because it was also insulting to us, showing a deliberate desire to never accept what we told you. We are virtually Universalists and still are, but you refuse to see it. To me it was a discussion and I was asking legitimate questions which you refused to answer because you had no answers. And then YOU brought your wife into it instead of facing and owning up that these were YOUR beliefs all along. It was your choice to make her your proxy, and now you have blown it up into insults against your wife when it was the contradictions in your own prejudices against "exclusivity" that caused the rift. And now you are judging me, something which you repeatedly said could only be done by Christ. I am truly sorry you decided to react instead of respond- I was trying to teach you the other side of exclusivity, and that you yourself is as exclusive as anyone. Nobody can make anybody do anything- and the strategy of "Look what you made me do!" seldom works well. I really do wish you well in your life, and I will do my best to repent for all I have done wrong here. Obviously I made mistakes. I would not have put all this now clearly wasted time into trying to help you if I thought for one second that I was not doing that. It would have been - and apparently was- completely a waste of time. Daily for weeks and months There are times to turn over the tables of the money lenders, and Christ will judge me whether or not that is what I was doing or not. There is a time and purpose for everything. Christ- not you- will be my judge, and I am ready to stand before Him for what I have done.
  8. No We believe that HIS sacrifice was to give up transcendence so he could truly be our Father, just as Christ is his Son. We have the same nature. God does not use supernatural means simply because he has taken it upon himself not to do so. Whatever appears to be "supernatural" is done through natural law that we do not presently understand- like say, showing a television image to people in the 15th century. They would see it as witchcraft or a miracle, but we would recognize it as technology which the present audience did not understand It is like putting yourself on a diet. You voluntarily give up something to get something greater. This is called self-determination and to me it is the highest form of freedom. He gave up transcendence and determined himself to immanence, to be our Father. I think probably we have finished our conversation, my goal recently was to show you that what is "exclusive" to one is not necessarily exclusive to another. Exclusivity is a relative term, and everyone is exclusive about something. E V E R Y O N E. If you stand for nothing you ARE nothing. Best wishes. I was attempting to give you some tough love- I hope it was not too tough
  9. And he is not actually abiding by the laws that he himself created. Why would God break his own rules? The Plan of Salvation is his design. Why would he break it?
  10. Why does sin require sacrifice, and how do you know that the Bible is from God? Isn't that very exclusive to not accept all scriptures? Why pick something with unknown sources and lots of redactions of volumes pasted together centuries after the documents are written?
  11. Why does she believe in the Bible? Are you aware of the Documentary Hypothesis? Why is she not a Buddhist or Muslim or Parsi? Did she study all religions before deciding what she wanted to be? Doesn't that seem to be a logical thing to do?
  12. Why? How does she know he is her Savior and what does that mean? What did she have to do to make him her savior.?
  13. I don't understand any of that, and find it very confusing And no, philosophers prefer clear definitions, and least coherent theories which can be discussed. So Jesus is our judge but you don't know on what basis he judges us, I guess as long as we accept "the atonement", left undefined. I don't see that as a productive point of view for deriving purpose in one's life. That provides no direction for mankind. And you are not correctly interpreting what I believe either. I believe your way is at least as exclusive as mine, but I see it as terribly undefined while ours is at least defined. So what exactly do I need to do to achieve eternal life? Please make it simple for me. Give me a list. Without a list we will be judged but we don't even know on what basis? What's the use of that? How does knowing that improve my life or give it meaning? Please answer that part. If the first sentence of your post had been "believe this and you will have eternal life" it would have made more sense to me. At least you are saying to DO something
  14. And a forced choice is all the option you give us. Exclusivist or not? Sure in the same way you are. That is the best I can do with a forced choice Exclusivist, but everyone will see it as the right choice. And all will accept that choice, thereby not making it NOT exclusive at all. It is as if you are defining believers in the law of gravity as exclusivist. As always, it is only semantic Just as Wittgenstein would say
  15. This is highly exclusive, especially when just before this you said that a practicing Muslim could attain eternal life apparently without believing that Christ is God. YOU are clearly either an exclusivist or very confused. This is the same problem you allege the LDS of having. There is either a correct path or not, and according to this statement, you have defined what IS the correct path: '" '"Let me assure you I teach and believe that Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life" - no one comes to the Father but by Him."" "" No Muslims, Buddhists, Parsis, Sikhs, Pagans, Atheists, Bahais, etc etc Most of the human population are therefore barred from "coming to the Father", whatever that means. How can you say you are NOT exclusivist? But you have been asked that probably dozens of times but you never respond or explain how that is NOT exclusivist.
  16. And so then there is no requirement for belief in Jesus at all, and no reason to accept you as a pastor, or Christianity at all. That makes it a waste of time. Yes I agree then that your way certainly is not exclusive. If what you say is true it is not even a "way". It is nothing. It requires nothing it gives no promises. It does not even define what Jesus Christ is or could be If what you say is true I don't even know why you could call it Christianity.
  17. And I just sigh about your sweeping generalizations,strawmen, our supposed denying you of heaven, and your inability to listen, your passive aggressive pleading for answers, and you ignoring them when given.
  18. The difference between your church and mine in this regard is the fact that you have a Magesterium which defines orthodox doctrine. I do not mean "Orthodox" in the sense of the branches of Catholicism which are not part of "Roman Catholicism"- I am using "orthodox" as an adjective which is contrasted with the word's opposite which would be "unorthodox", meaning something like "conforming to what is traditionally accepted as right or true, established and approved. We have no such entity, but are encouraged to read the scriptures and interpret them for ourselves, following the Holy Spirit. Those who get "too far out of line" would be corrected by their bishops, but there are no written guidelines for determining what is "orthodox" regarding a particular belief even for bishops. As LDS theologians have noted we do not believe in the concept of orthoDOXY, "correct belief" but the principle of orthoPRAXIS, "correct action, practice, or behavior". The highest measure of "correct action" we have is the temple recommend interview which only peripherally touches on very central doctrines asking whether or not, for example if one believes in God, the atonement, the Restoration of the gospel, and the existence of modern prophets Those are arguably the only four "doctrinal" questions in the interview- the rest is devoted to actions and practices, keeping specific commandments etc. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend In short it becomes clear that our church is based on correct action and is more a life-style than a set of clearly defined doctrines. IF you pass the interview, all the blessings the church has to offer are available to all mankind. I submit that compared to the required doctrines that most of Christianity imposes on its members- the Trinity, the abstract nature of a transcendental God, and how though transcendent he can be considered a "Father". the question of how Christ could be human and retain his transcendent nature, the metaphysical status of the Eucharist, Original Sin and why it is just to be visited on all mankind, the problem of why a Good God would allow evil to happen, what it means for God to be omniscient and present everywhere at the same time, why one should pray for intercession of Saints while one could go directly to God himself, what happens to those who never have nor were able to know about the existence of Christ, and so many other doctrinal concepts that one must believe are "correctly" solved to be to be considered "true "- that our beliefs are not very "exclusive" at all
  19. It is really an idea with vast implications. All notions of human equality and rights hinge on it, the worth of all people and all of the concepts of justice rely on the idea of reciprocity - what's right for one should be right for all. Inalienable rights conceptually are based on that- morally it's the "whole ball of wax"
  20. I agree in principle but the problem is how we KNOW what God's word and authority encompasses THAT is the real problem- KNOWING! And the only way we can KNOW is through evidence that is not objective, but totally subjective- "burning in the bosom". We know from previous experience that others who do not know what that means finds it to be not only relativistic, but imaginary!
  21. Of course I suppose for the individual who is sacrificed! One is voluntary, and the other is not. It is our religious belief- not historically verifiable- not that any of the stories about Jesus are historically verifiable- that he sacrificed himself. From the world's point of view, one might say that he was a political rabble-rouser who was arrested- and whose entourage fought back at least with one sword, permanently maiming an officer of the People's Protective Force, the wonderful Roman Empire. And so the revolutionary leader of the cult was arrested and received the perfectly legal punishment he deserved for insurrection. From that point of view there was no "sacrifice" at all. I have heard of anti-Catholics speaking about Catholics being "cannibals" for taking the Eucharist. I am just saying that anything can be interpreted virtually any way the interpreter sees it.
  22. I beg to differ. So if you are nice to someone they always stab you in the back, right? Watch your back then around your sweetie How odd that business people are nice to their customers!! Especially those dang atheist business people.!! No pragmatic morals whatsoever!!
  23. I hesitate to even say this. Christ was a human, right? It's amazing how apostasy twists things. And every crumb of the Eucharist.... Uh, concepts get turned around pretty quickly. Like the game of "telephone". A few generations of illiteracy accelerates every thing
×
×
  • Create New...