I Am Not A Christian

[Damien the Leper]

No, the other way around. Phychology.is a product of God, involving the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors.

My point was that by using logic you can see that among all beings there is one that has to be the most supreme being.

The glory of God is intelligence, which means God is the most intelligent of all beings. No other being is as glorious.

Citing scripture does not advance or give creedance to your argument. Humans are evolutionary beings with an amazing capacity for intelligence. We are born with intelligence and the ability to know right from wrong. We don't need a user's manual to conscience. I do not believe that God is the author of moralism or ethics. Scripture does not appropriately or convincingly argue otherwise.

Well somebody has to save us, if we're ever going to be saved. Who do you think is up to the job?

We have to learn to save us from ourselves. We don't need a spiritual redeemer. We need hope in our humanity.

[Ahab]

This thread will give me a chance to say something that's been on my mind:

This is a day when many Evangelical Christians feel put upon and even persecuted by the progressive secularists and others of similar ilk in our society. The anti-Evangelical hostility exhibited by these secularists and big-government idolitors is typified by the folowing quote from an article on Nora Ephron found at godfatherploitics.com...

'At the 2006 Aspen Institute panel discussion on “Television, Cinema and American Values,” Ephron was asked if she knew any evangelical Christians and/or Bush supporters, and if she did not then how does she know what she knows about “those kind of folks.” Her response was, simply, “No, and I’m not ashamed to admit it." She had disdain for millions of people with whom she had no knowledge. She admitted that she did not know a single evangelical Christian and was proud of that fact.'

So our Evangelical friends read pieces like this and plaintively lament, "How can these awful people hold these attitudes against us? Don't they know we worship a God who is the embodiment of perfect love? How can this Nora Ephron person actually boast and seem so proud of the fact that she doesn't know a single Evangelical Christian?"

Well, if our born again brothers and sisters would stop and wax introspective for a few moments, they might learn the reason why they are despised. At least in part this antipathy exists because Evangelicals believe in a God who is apparently unconcerned with the fact that he's going to send the majority of his human creation into and endless hell, where those so consigned will be compelled to endure endless sufferings of such horrific horror that the human mand can not even conceive of the degree and extent of this suffering. People like Nora Ephron have a sterotypical caricture of Christians affixed in their minds -- they think Egladly

Something I seem to be noticing more lately, more than I noticed before, are contradictions in some people's beliefs.

On one hand they believe they're worshipping a God of pure love, and on the other hand they believe God will cause people to suffer as you described for... what??? Not for just rebelling against the gospel, which I believe can apply in some cases, but for not knowing about the gospel.

You have to believe the true gospel to be saved, so they say, but how can you believe if you don't even know about it, and how can you know about it unless someone tells you about it, and how can someone tell you about it unless the teller knows what the true gospel is, including who has God's authority to tell people what the true gospel is.

Seems like they all should be condemned along with the ones who don't know it if they think it's up to them to tell others about. Or at least that would be in harmony with their beliefs.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, we can do better than that. We can ask God and hear what he says. Who knows, some of us may already agree with him.

How do you know it is God? Because God told you? Because a spiritual leader told you? Because God's conciousness manifested in the Spirit told you?

[Ahab]

Indeed. But recall that LDS differentiate between say the mortal body and the spirtual resurrected body.

Yes, but while recognizing that both are composed of physical elements.

The Greeks had words to convey the same; one for the heaven describing the physical universe and one for the place where God dwells.

Watch out for those Greeks!

In reality, both places are in the physical universe, with the universe defined as the one place where everything is.

We use "heaven" to refer to the place where God is while not knowing for sure which part of the physical universe it is in.

There always is.

There's always one before another, but there isn't only one person (or couple) who got the whole chain going, generally.

My own hypothesis is that the Gods were once mortal creatures who ultimately evolved to Divinity and now have discovered and more efficient way for Theosis.

We are the kind of being our Father is now, even though we're not as perfect as he and our kind of being can become.

Try thinking of what Adam and Eve were before they fell and what they can now be restored to through the atonement.

LDS doctrine is that God was once a mortal man on another planet (Gospel Principles ch 47). This precludes him from being the first and only God unless you like my hypothesis. But that would not leave time enough for evolution....

As I said, there is no "first" God, generally speaking. There is always one before another, but no one to start a chain as if one person became God before somebody else.

Life doesn't begin. It is perpetuated as each kind of being reproduces, and we are children of God who ourselves may also become parents to others, someday. Our children won't spring out of nowhere, though, and their life will not begin. We will have their life within us and we will be able to perpetuate our species, just like our Fathers before us.

[Ahab]

How do you know it is God?

To know they're the most supreme kind of being in all of existence all I need to know is what kinds of beings exist. To me, the kind of being with the most intelligence is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

One more point now: Along with using the word "God" to refer to the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, it is also common and proper to use the word "God" to refer to all of that species who are good, and perfectly good. Thus, while the most supreme kind of being in all of existence can include some evil persons, we usually don't refer to the evil persons as "God", even though they are the same species as the good persons.

So now maybe you want to ask how I know the persons I refer to as God are good persons, and not evil?

Because God told you?

Yes.

Because a spiritual leader told you?

Yes, many have, but I prefer to get my information directly from our Father in heaven through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Because God's conciousness manifested in the Spirit told you?

Yes.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ahab

[RobertAC]

So our Evangelical friends read pieces like this and plaintively lament, "How can these awful people hold these attitudes against us? Don't they know we worship a God who is the embodiment of perfect love? How can this Nora Ephron person actually boast and seem so proud of the fact that she doesn't even know a single Evangelical Christian?"

Well, if our born again brothers and sisters would stop and wax introspective for a few moments, they might learn the reason why they are so despised and derided: At least in part, this antipathy exists because the seculaists think Evangelicals believe in a God who is apparently unconcerned with the fact that he's going to send the majority of his human creation into and endless hell, where those so consigned will be compelled to endure endless sufferings of such horrific torment that the human mind cannot even conceive of the degree and extent of this never-ending spiritual, mental and physical agony. People like Nora Ephron have a sterotypical caricture of Christians affixed in their minds -- they think they worship a being who makes Hitler, Stalin and Mao look like a trio of amateurs.

Unfortuately, because of ignorance, we Latter Day Saints are thrown into the mix.

Teddyaware,

As someone who would probably fit the label of a progressive secularist, I tend to agree with you on much of what you say. But aside from the "angry and evil God," I think there is another point of view that has to be mentioned. A number of secularists see the value of religion as a philosophy. While secularists might not deny the existence of God, God is very much an abstract concept, and one whose existence is questionable.

Our country and our world is facing tremendous economic and environmental issues that will not only affect this generation, but generations to come. When the world has to come together to address these issues with a collective analytical mind, it seems foolish when part of our world has to debate whether our leaders are of the right religion or if they have a correct/sincere belief in God.

When a secularist says "I don't know -- and I don't want to know" a religious person, it may not just be anger that is behind the statement. In many cases, there will be embarrasment and an underlying belief that the religious are fools.

[swfarnsworth]

This is hearsay. Can we not do better than so-and-so says God said so?

That is exactly the point of the quote. (Did you read it?) You may start by taking so-and-so's word for it, but it's not necessary when you can know that He exists just as well as Enoch (sees God when his city is taken into heaven), the brother of Jared (sees Jehovah's finger and speaks to Him directly), or Moses (burning bush).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Fair enough. I'm not necessarily arguing the existence of God. LDS are entitled, just as other Christians, to believe as they wish. Perhaps I am arguing that the concept of God is no longer relevant to me.

The bigger question is are we relevant to Him...as a parent it must be so as my children occupy most of my thoughts.

[TAO]

Therein lies the greater problem. Does God exist? If so, says who? How is this substantiated? Can this be undeniably verified in some form other than mere testimony?

Actually, this is pretty easily answered. There's a good analogy for it, in fact:

Can you prove your senses work correctly? Who says so? How can this fact be substantiated? Can this be undeniably verified in some form other than mere testimony?

The answer is no, it cannot; one cannot say so.

But, is life really worth it if we can't trust our senses? Your answer is probably no, as is mine.

So you can justify belief in God if you believe it helps make life worthwhile, just as you can justify belief that your senses are trustable if it helps make your life worthwhile. This doesn't mean everybody has to make the same assumptions that you do (people have different ideas about 'worthwhile'), but it does mean you are very likely justified.

I cannot pray to a being that I'm not sure even exists. Nor am I really concerned that God exists. There are bigger problems to deal with than the source of moral dilemma, spiritual conscience and consequential religious agency.

Yes, there are bigger problems, especially when you consider that the choice to believe or not really just rests on personal choice. That isn't to say it isn't important; it's one of the most important things about life that you should take time to consider what you think about, it's just arguing about it is just a work in futility at that point. After all, people will disagree based on what they think is important for life.

IOW, I'm not concerned with salvation or exaltation. I'm concerned with relieving the burdens of the here and now that could benefit humanity.

I think both can be tied together, tbh. Working on my own salvation does help relieve a lot of the stress I have in life, in any case =).

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Edited September 15, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

How do you know it is God? Because God told you? Because a spiritual leader told you? Because God's conciousness manifested in the Spirit told you?

You know because you trust your own senses and instincts.

[Damien the Leper]

To know they're the most supreme kind of being in all of existence all I need to know is what kinds of beings exist. To me, the kind of being with the most intelligence is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

One more point now: Along with using the word "God" to refer to the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, it is also common and proper to use the word "God" to refer to all of that species who are good, and perfectly good. Thus, while the most supreme kind of being in all of existence can include some evil persons, we usually don't refer to the evil persons as "God", even though they are the same species as the good persons.

So now maybe you want to ask how I know the persons I refer to as God are good persons, and not evil?

I don't doubt your testimony or conviction concerning spiritual matters. However, your argument doesn't seem to make any more sense than it did before.

[Damien the Leper]

That is exactly the point of the quote. (Did you read it?) You may start by taking so-and-so's word for it, but it's not necessary when you can know that He exists just as well as Enoch (sees God when his city is taken into heaven), the brother of Jared (sees Jehovah's finger and speaks to Him directly), or Moses (burning bush).

Relying on stories or historical scriptures to validate your point leads me to an endless rabbit hole. I'm not jumping though.

[Damien the Leper]

The bigger question is are we relevant to Him...as a parent it must be so as my children occupy most of my thoughts.

I can empathize with your perspective only to the extent that you, yourself, are a father. I don't see a reason or need for God in my life. This is not an attack on anyone else's faith since it is not my place to comment on such nor would that be respectful.

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, this is pretty easily answered. There's a good analogy for it, in fact:

Can you prove your senses work correctly? Who says so? How can this fact be substantiated? Can this be undeniably verified in some form other than mere testimony?

The answer is no, it cannot; one cannot say so.

But, is life really worth it if we can't trust our senses? Your answer is probably no, as is mine.

So you can justify belief in God if you believe it helps make life worthwhile, just as you can justify belief that your senses are trustable if it helps make your life worthwhile. This doesn't mean everybody has to make the same assumptions that you do (people have different ideas about 'worthwhile'), but it does mean you are very likely justified.

Yes, there are bigger problems, especially when you consider that the choice to believe or not really just rests on personal choice. That isn't to say it isn't important; it's one of the most important things about life that you should take time to consider what you think about, it's just arguing about it is just a work in futility at that point. After all, people will disagree based on what they think is important for life.

I think both can be tied together, tbh. Working on my own salvation does help relieve a lot of the stress I have in life, in any case =).

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

I confess my disappointment in your somewhat Matrix-esque thought process on the subject. The poor logic presented in those movies demonstrate why they were so bad.

We have a difference in values then. Yours are based on the importance of a hereafter whereas mine are more focused on here and now and dealing with humanity. Temple ordinances, baptism, priesthood, etc. are only important to those that believe in the soteriological necessity within.

I do not believe they are. But I mean no disrespect to the sanctity of those ordinances as they pertain to the Restoration Movement and the believers therein.

[Damien the Leper]

You know because you trust your own senses and instincts.

Fair enough. But I trust mine now more than ever. My instincts and senses tell me not to trust in intangible or psychological delusions that somehow attributed and attested to my former faith. Simply put, I was wrong. I have to correct all the wrongdoing done within that mindset.

I felt controlled and now I have to continue on the path toward my liberation and glass house of faith.

[Calm]

Yeah, that Jesus is trouble. Doesn't pick up after himself. Gets out of doing the dishes, even when asked to do them a half-a-dozen times. Always late for meetings.

[Brother Ray]

You know you are a Christian. Heavenly Father knows you are a Christian.The opinion of others doesn't really matter. Does it?

[TAO]

I confess my disappointment in your somewhat Matrix-esque thought process on the subject.

Hehe... never watched the Matrix... only heard small things about it. Still, I'm suprised it talked about the subject... I though it had more to do with dreams and stuff. I discovered the thought process that I did when thinking a lot about proof and evidence and faith and life and all of that important stuff and what they really are and stuff. Then later on, I discovered Brain-in-a-Vat and other skepticism based heuristics. So, I guess you could say perhaps I encountered the thoughts behind the movies in their philisophical forms.

The poor logic presented in those movies demonstrate why they were so bad.

You'll have to tell me. I never watched the movie =p. In any case, my logic is not poor; it follows all the rules I know about logic. It just is considering the assumptions about life most people take for granted. Which, I guess you could say is about wierd, but I am a bit wierd, that is the truth XD.

We have a difference in values then. Yours are based on the importance of a hereafter whereas mine are more focused on here and now and dealing with humanity. Temple ordinances, baptism, priesthood, etc. are only important to those that believe in the soteriological necessity within.

Of course. That's a choice we have to make, which will determine what we view as practical to believe. I've always believed that a hereafter makes life important, critical, and full of zest. A life without a hereafter, is to me, not such a good thing. That's why I focus on the hereafter a lot.

In any case, yes, you'd be right, those are only viewed as important to those who believe in it. But hey, I believe in it. =)

I do not believe they are. But I mean no disrespect to the sanctity of those ordinances as they pertain to the Restoration Movement and the believers therein.

That's your choice to make, not mine, definately =). Don't worry so much about my opinion is as to what seems right according to your experiences, which are your own. And I will do what seems right according to mine.

Edited September 15, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

Fair enough. But I trust mine now more than ever.

That is your choice, and my choice also for my own senses and instincts.

My instincts and senses tell me not to trust in intangible or psychological delusions that somehow attributed and attested to my former faith.

And mine tell me to trust what I feel and sense =). Because of our different experiences, we may go different ways.

However, note the word delusions. Don't lose yourself to the implications behind words; the implications matter just as much as the meaning, really. What seems delusive to you, may not seem so delusive to others. Just as what seems not so delusive to you, may seem very delusive to others.

Simply put, I was wrong. I have to correct all the wrongdoing done within that mindset.

I felt controlled and now I have to continue on the path toward my liberation and glass house of faith.

Mmmm... while you seek a path of liberation, and freedom... I seek a path of self-control and order. Perhaps that is why we differ? We have different desires about life, different views, different dreams. In any case, best of luck on your own path, just as I hope I have luck on mine.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Edited September 15, 2012 by TAO

[Damien the Leper]

Hehe... never watched the Matrix... only heard small things about it. Still, I'm suprised it talked about the subject... I though it had more to do with dreams and stuff. I discovered the thought process that I did when thinking a lot about proof and evidence and faith and life and all of that important stuff and what they really are and stuff. Then later on, I discovered Brain-in-a-Vat and other skepticism based heuristics. So, I guess you could say perhaps I encountered the thoughts behind the movies in their philisophical forms.

You'll have to tell me. I never watched the movie =p. In any case, my logic is not poor; it follows all the rules I know about logic. It just is considering the assumptions about life most people take for granted. Which, I guess you could say is about wierd, but I am a bit wierd, that is the truth XD.

The appropriate philosophical argument that I think can be attributed to The Matrix is Plato's Cave scenario.

What I do not find appropriate as an argument is the overstated "Is this reality really real?" "Can we trust what we know despite not knowing that this is actually real?" It is a poor attempt at over philosophizing and is an absolute mess.

[Damien the Leper]

That is your choice, and my choice also for my own senses and instincts.

And mine tell me to trust what I feel and sense =). Because of our different experiences, we may go different ways.

However, note the word delusions. Don't lose yourself to the implications behind words; the implications matter just as much as the meaning, really. What seems delusive to you, may not seem so delusive to others. Just as what seems not so delusive to you, may seem very delusive to others.

Mmmm... while you seek a path of liberation, and freedom... I seek a path of self-control and order. Perhaps that is why we differ? We have different desires about life, different views, different dreams. In any case, best of luck on your own path, just as I hope I have luck on mine.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

I did not nor did I mean to imply that others suffer from delusions. I was speaking of my own. Because I apply a criticism toward myself does not mean I do so because others somehow share in what I am criticizing. There is no need to play the back-handed or indirect victim.

Liberation, as I see it, is taking back control from others, institutions, religion, etc. I did not imply any kind of chaos in my sentiments. Order is necessary as a means to maintain peace.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I can empathize with your perspective only to the extent that you, yourself, are a father. I don't see a reason or need for God in my life. This is not an attack on anyone else's faith since it is not my place to comment on such nor would that be respectful.

Over the past few months I have come to realize that God needs me in his life, just as my mother does now. You do have parents, even if you do not seem to need "Him" right now, consider that "He" needs you. Right now I have a son on a mission and I only get to here from him once a week in an e-mail...I live for those Mondays.

[Calm]

Good to see this, PaPa.

[TAO]

The appropriate philosophical argument that I think can be attributed to The Matrix is Plato's Cave scenario.

Hmmm... ah, that is cool! Actually, that is quite good! That's a great analogy! Thanks! I've always been looking for a way to describe how the brain identifies things into objects, and that is perfect!

What I do not find appropriate as an argument is the overstated "Is this reality really real?"

And what is wrong with considering that?

"Can we trust what we know despite not knowing that this is actually real?" It is a poor attempt at over philosophizing and is an absolute mess.

How is it a poor attempt? And why is over-philosophizing things bad? Truly, all it is is a debate over whether you can trust things you can't prove or not. That's really the only philosophical debate behind the issue, kinda. To me, that is a fine topic to discuss, because it goes over the ethics of trust and belief, which then apply to other similar scenarios, like faith.

[TAO]

I did not nor did I mean to imply that others suffer from delusions.

No, I understand that. What I am saying though is be careful that the word 'deulsions' doesn't pollute the... idea of the thing, if you know what I mean. All we really have is one person with one experience that he cannot fully describe to the other, and another person with another experience that he cannot fully describe to the other. In other words, delusions becomes an issue of perspective, and it really isn't a judgement we are good at making (because we haven't experienced what the other person has). So it's just a caution not to let the word pollute the idea... but then again, you aren't someone who usually lets words pollute ideas, so I probably didn't even need to say that.

I was speaking of my own. Because I apply a criticism toward myself does not mean I do so because others somehow share in what I am criticizing. There is no need to play the back-handed or indirect victim.

Hmmm... I don't understand... could you explain better?

Liberation, as I see it, is taking back control from others, institutions, religion, etc. I did not imply any kind of chaos in my sentiments. Order is necessary as a means to maintain peace.

Nah, I didn't mean to imply chaos to your position... I was a bit worried about that... I shoulda been more clear. What I mean to imply is that while you were looking for a way to escape certain guidelines in your life, I'm looking for a way to enforce them in my life. In other words, you are looking for freedom from those guidelines, I'm looking to restrict myself to those guidelines. We are looking, in a sense, in the opposite directions =). It's just interesting to look at. =)

But you have a good day!

-TAO