Religion And History: What Did Man Make?

[Maidservant]

I found myself making a lengthy reply in another thread that I realized was a derail so am starting here.

Questing Beast answered me this on something I had said on the history of a religious development:

[[@Maidservant: The "larger historical situation" is what I approach religious history with. And that is why I hold the belief that all religions are man-made, not revealed as exclusive "plans" that God mandates.... ]]

I do and do not agree with you (speaking of myself, and not on what you should choose for yourself, of course).

Hmm, how shall I say it.

I approach history, spiritually. History is the study of and knowledge of human choices. History, to me, is not academic or scientific and it definitely is not about the past. (The past doesn't exist.) History is the fashioning of a PRESENT paradigm of what who we are as people, where we come from and where we can go based on both of those other things. I think this work--fashioning and re-fashioning the paradigm--is unutterably essential work for humanity. History is framing and re-framing our relationship to ourselves as human beings--our condemnation of ourselves, our justification of ourselves, our story of who we are, our redemption of ourselves (I hope for that last ).

I do not divide God from myself. To say that something is man-made might as well say it is God-made. To say that something is God-made, might as well have said it is man-made. I know that 99 percent of those reading this, this will make no sense. But to me, there is very little line. We are the gods, and we came here to create this world. God calls upon man, and man calls upon God. It is the wrestle since the beginning of time.

God breathes. The thousand petalled lotus. And so, this God, of course, breathed Jesus, Joseph Smith, me. And of course, the Church represents God and life. (And I do not accept a common understanding of exclusivity claims--I don't think of the Church as just another religion or church. It's a covenant. It's life. But perhaps the exclusivity idea should be a whole other thread, also.)

Still, within this paradigm there are questions that I find important to be asked (again, important to me, can't speak for others).

1) Did Jesus of Nazareth live on earth? Implications of yes or no.

2) Did Jesus make his own claims of his physical parentage and of his physical resurrection (and/or are there credible contemporary eye witness or ear witness accounts)? Implications of yes or no.

3) Did this same Jesus of Nazareth communicate with Joseph Smith and is this same Jesus of Nazareth directing the church, directly? Implications of yes or no

4) Even assuming all yes's for the above, then, really, who IS Jesus of Nazareth, and what is he saying about himself, about me, about the nature of life and universe, and, understanding these answers, do I then want to subscribe to such a cause or paradigm and participate; especially favoring it over the other opportunities in the world (assuming that I would be barred from some other opportunities were I to continue with Jesus; or what opportunities as a human being, if any, are opened to me based on my participation in Jesus' creation)? Implications of the details of this answer(s)?

There are a lot of other questions (i.e. 5) Even assuming yes's to 1-4, what came before Jesus of Nazareth, and on what basis do I test for myself any ancient knowledge in connection with or versus to the knowledge Jesus offers or purports to offer; 6) assuming I locate the most ancient sacred text and read it, the most ancient god and the most ancient cosmos, is the fact that it is ancient any recommendation to it's essentialness to me as a human? or no?; 7) and and on forever with the questions)--but I think most questions can be considered the "sub"s of question number 4.

Jesus of Nazareth is either a God or a man; and/or a God and a man (especially if you are like me and take the sense that all of us are). So the question is not for me, what did God make? what did man make? the question is What Did Jesus (the man/the God) Make, and then So? What is my choice in relation to what Jesus did (or did not) make?

We are unutterably powerful creators--we create our history, our paradigm, and, yes, our religion--even if we are TBMS's we create our religion, because we all have our unique approach to life and we are all responsible for what we believe and how we act.

But is an acknowledgement that Man made religion--does that then necessarily mean that some mistake has taken place? Or is that what is supposed to be happening? Edited to add: Not that we have 'arrived' at the 'right' religion, but the very struggle we have over the ages with our strengths and weaknesses as humans and paradigmatically, until we come to the perfect bonds of charity.

I've said a lot here--about history, exclusivity, Jesus, ancient-ness, God/man being the same, etc. So have at it--anyone can comment and have any tangent you like.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Maidservant

[theplains]

1) Did Jesus of Nazareth live on earth? Implications of yes or no.

2) Did Jesus make his own claims of his physical parentage and of his physical resurrection (and/or are there credible contemporary eye witness or ear witness accounts)? Implications of yes or no.

3) Did this same Jesus of Nazareth communicate with Joseph Smith and is this same Jesus of Nazareth directing the church, directly? Implications of yes or no

4) Even assuming all yes's for the above, then, really, who IS Jesus of Nazareth, and what is he saying about himself, about me, about the nature of life and universe, and, understanding these answers, do I then want to subscribe to such a cause or paradigm and participate; especially favoring it over the other opportunities in the world (assuming that I would be barred from some other opportunities were I to continue with Jesus; or what opportunities as a human being, if any, are opened to me based on my participation in Jesus' creation)? Implications of the details of this answer(s)?

1] Yes. Implication of no is that Christianity is false.

2] In Evangelical terms, Jesus was not created in a union of a man and woman on earth or in heaven. . We have

a record of the eye witness accounts of his resurrection. I have never seen any accounts of eye witnesses to the

existence of Alexander the Great. Implications - the virgin birth is a miracle showing his identity. If there is no

resurrection, there is no atonement.

3] Did Jesus communicate with Joseph Smith? LDS would say say. Implications of no means he was a liar and the

entire LDS Church sits on the foundation of sand. Implications of yes means a restoration took place. But his

teaching of Heavenly Father being a man who became a God leads people to follow a different God that what

we teach in our church.

Thanks,

Jim

[Questing Beast]

...

We are unutterably powerful creators--we create our history, our paradigm, and, yes, our religion--even if we are TBMS's we create our religion, because we all have our unique approach to life and we are all responsible for what we believe and how we act.

But is an acknowledgement that Man made religion--does that then necessarily mean that some mistake has taken place? Or is that what is supposed to be happening? Edited to add: Not that we have 'arrived' at the 'right' religion, but the very struggle we have over the ages with our strengths and weaknesses as humans and paradigmatically, until we come to the perfect bonds of charity.

I've said a lot here--about history, exclusivity, Jesus, ancient-ness, God/man being the same, etc. So have at it--anyone can comment and have any tangent you like.

Your assertion that we are creators I agree with. That means I agree that "man-made" is the same as "God-made", because "God" made us. I don't believe in Joseph Smith's theology vis-a-vis that God the Father is the Cause of all creation, yet is a physical glorified "Man" who is finite in any way. The Cause of Existence in the first place is not finite but Infinite. The God Mormons worship is finite physically, as we are; is in fact one of "us", just "more intelligent than [we] all".

It is fine to assume that Mormonism is exclusive, to you and other "TBMs". But don't try and convince someone who believes the same about his/her religion, or paradigm for Existence. There are too many of them and they can't all be right if they claim everyone but they are mistaken. If they allow all genuine attempts to commune with "God" are equally valid attempts then we have "ecumenism" between religions, which in my opinion is the best state to be in as we live and seek together.

When I assert that "all religions are man-made", therefore, what I am saying is that "God" works all in all. But men must record their history and make it make sense out of what they believe. That no two histories agree fully is just evidence that man-made history is no different than man-made religion....

[Maidservant]

1] Yes. Implication of no is that Christianity is false.

2] In Evangelical terms, Jesus was not created in a union of a man and woman on earth or in heaven. . We have

a record of the eye witness accounts of his resurrection. I have never seen any accounts of eye witnesses to the

existence of Alexander the Great. Implications - the virgin birth is a miracle showing his identity. If there is no

resurrection, there is no atonement.

3] Did Jesus communicate with Joseph Smith? LDS would say say. Implications of no means he was a liar and the

entire LDS Church sits on the foundation of sand. Implications of yes means a restoration took place. But his

teaching of Heavenly Father being a man who became a God leads people to follow a different God that what

we teach in our church.

Thanks,

Jim

Thanks, Jim.

By the way, I don't mean to suggest that there is just one answer to the implications. Every person must answer what those implications are for themselves.

Also, I did not necessarily mean that posters have to answer these questions; they are just the way my mind works and I how I ask myself questions. Unless you want to post on the questions, feel free.

But thanks for sharing where your thoughts are at, Jim.

I don't believe in Joseph Smith's theology vis-a-vis that God the Father is the Cause of all creation, yet is a physical glorified "Man" who is finite in any way. The Cause of Existence in the first place is not finite but Infinite. The God Mormons worship is finite physically, as we are; is in fact one of "us", just "more intelligent than [we] all".

Okay, makes sense.

I don't think too much about infinite/finite. I think those are man-made paradigms. I don't really care either way on that axis, and don't think they are helpful in thinking about God either way, but I can understand if you do, and I think a lot of people do. I also wouldn't necessarily think that having a physical body automatically un-defines a being for infinity, if one was interested in infinity/finity. But it's all a very interesting set of questions, thanks for sharing on that.

I don't know that in Joseph Smith's theology that God the Father IS the Cause of all creation. I guess that could be another thread, but this is an anything goes thread so.

My reason for bringing these items up is not to correct you, as it is obvious you have thought long and hard about your beliefs and have not come by them lightly. But just that there are a lot of ways to understand the ideas that exist in the world (and in Mormonism as a sub-set), but I'm sure you know that too.

It is fine to assume that Mormonism is exclusive, to you and other "TBMs".

I thought I said the opposite of this. Sorry if I didn't express myself well. You will never find me defending exclusivity. My point was perhaps similar to the one on finity/infinity--that to speak of exclusivity requires some underlying elements in order for the definition even to be supported--and I am missing those elements in my thinking. I cannot even DISCUSS exclusivity the way it sometimes is discussed, much less say an opinion on it one way or the other. So . . .

But don't try and convince someone who believes the same about his/her religion, or paradigm for Existence.

Never have, never will. My foundational belief is that we are all responsible for our beliefs and I trust people with their own life journey.

There are too many of them and they can't all be right if they claim everyone but they are mistaken. If they allow all genuine attempts to commune with "God" are equally valid attempts then we have "ecumenism" between religions, which in my opinion is the best state to be in as we live and seek together.

Sounds good to me. I would go so far as to say that is isn't the systems that are right or wrong . . . it is that being a PERSON (a human being) is what is right. And there are PERSONS who choose to participate in these systems--and we all receive the consequences of our choices (using 'consquences' neutrally, as being just that, whatever follows from our choices); we all struggle to know how to be ourselves, to reach our (cosmic) potential, whatever we understand that to be. If we select a certain system to assist us in that, then I trust myself with my choice and I trust others with their choices.

When I assert that "all religions are man-made", therefore, what I am saying is that "God" works all in all. But men must record their history and make it make sense out of what they believe. That no two histories agree fully is just evidence that man-made history is no different than man-made religion....

Yep.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Maidservant

[Questing Beast]

I only have one topic to respond to here, and ironically it is the one you say that you don't think "too much about."

The only way that "God" can be physically contained in flesh and bones, and yet remain Infinite, is if his body is a manifestation within creation, in other words, a "condescension" to our level of apprehension. The scriptures teach this of course. But also we are told that by becoming one with Christ, we become one like he is one with his Father, and we become "sons and daughters" of God and joint heirs with Christ of "all the Father hath". Obviously we are finite creatures, and that is quite a promise to such as we! There is no evidence that we will ever be otherwise than finite no matter how immortal we are. We stand within space-time and as far as I believe we always will, living moment by moment forever. We are already doing so. Death merely changes the venue, probably back to what we are as immortals (before we do this mortality, learning thing, yet again?). So in the sense that God the Father is finite physically, so are we, and we are alike that way, because "God" (not the Father) makes all of us this way, which makes "the Father" the manifestation of God the Cause, through which it Is relating to us on the highest level that we will ever attain to....

Edited January 24, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Hamilton Porter]

I only have one topic to respond to here, and ironically it is the one you say that you don't think "too much about."

The only way that "God" can be physically contained in flesh and bones, and yet remain Infinite, is if his body is a manifestation within creation, in other words, a "condescension" to our level of apprehension. The scriptures teach this of course. But also we are told that by becoming one with Christ, we become one like he is one with his Father, and we become "sons and daughters" of God and joint heirs with Christ of "all the Father hath". Obviously we are finite creatures, and that is quite a promise to such as we! There is no evidence that we will ever be otherwise than finite no matter how immortal we are. We stand within space-time and as far as I believe we always will, living moment by moment forever. We are already doing so. Death merely changes the venue, probably back to what we are as immortals (before we do this mortality, learning thing, yet again?). So in the sense that God the Father is finite physically, so are we, and we are alike that way, because "God" (not the Father) makes all of us this way, which makes "the Father" the manifestation of God the Cause, through which it Is relating to us on the highest level that we will ever attain to....

Have you read this?

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Eternal-God-Metaphysics/dp/0199827958/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359092115&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+h.+webb

Just wondering.

[BCSpace]

But is an acknowledgement that Man made religion--does that then necessarily mean that some mistake has taken place? Or is that what is supposed to be happening? Edited to add: Not that we have 'arrived' at the 'right' religion, but the very struggle we have over the ages with our strengths and weaknesses as humans and paradigmatically, until we come to the perfect bonds of charity.

From my LDS perspective, that the rest of the world has been and still is in a condition of apostasy, it's easy for me to understand why many people have a hard time with organized religion or even the notion of the existence of God given the overall history of religion; conflict, violence, slavery, false doctrines, unworkable/unsuccessful philosophies etc. We say "bring what truth you have with you", but the bottom line is that they have no truth sufficient for exaltation or some type of uplift and that, I think, is a real stumbling block for a real and growing faith in many people. They must have the truth brought to them and have spiritual experience(s) of some kind along with that or they remain in darkness.

I think this dovetails well with D&C 76:99-101 wherein we see strongly implied good people of all religions including Christians still on course for the lowest degree of glory at best. They must receive the testimony of Jesus by joining his Church, the LDS Church, in this life or the next in order to be uplifted.

[bcuzbcuz]

Have you read this?

http://www.amazon.co...stephen h. webb

Just wondering.

I went to the Amazon page you posted. I saw the picture, and noticed the gaze of the onlookers in the cover picture, with a large marker stating "Click to LOOK INSIDE". I clicked to Look Inside! Boy, was I disappointed. That definitely wasn't truth in advertising. lol

[Maidservant]

I only have one topic to respond to here, and ironically it is the one you say that you don't think "too much about."

The only way that "God" can be physically contained in flesh and bones, and yet remain Infinite, is if his body is a manifestation within creation, in other words, a "condescension" to our level of apprehension. The scriptures teach this of course. But also we are told that by becoming one with Christ, we become one like he is one with his Father, and we become "sons and daughters" of God and joint heirs with Christ of "all the Father hath". Obviously we are finite creatures, and that is quite a promise to such as we! There is no evidence that we will ever be otherwise than finite no matter how immortal we are. We stand within space-time and as far as I believe we always will, living moment by moment forever. We are already doing so. Death merely changes the venue, probably back to what we are as immortals (before we do this mortality, learning thing, yet again?). So in the sense that God the Father is finite physically, so are we, and we are alike that way, because "God" (not the Father) makes all of us this way, which makes "the Father" the manifestation of God the Cause, through which it Is relating to us on the highest level that we will ever attain to....

Okay. I can't necessarily add anything to the discussion and I see your thought process, although I simply disagree with it, starting with the element that I don't see infinity/finiteness as a property of God either way--that it is a non-issue. But I already said that.

I could also say that we are all condescensions, but I don't normally use those terms, but I think it works well for both God and us (which, as I mentioned I don't consider to be a different ontology). I think questions that might be pertinent to these issues are: what is the basic nature of the universe to begin with (materially speaking) (or the multi-metaverse, as I like to say)? Is God in or out of that universe? Is man or a portion of his being in or out of the universe? If there is a "whole" universe (i.e. unfallen), what is it like and how is God in that whole universe? If we postulate a fallen universe (or? do we?), then what are we saying materially and how is that broken universe proposed to be repaired? (When I say "materially" here, I use it inclusively; I don't necessarily speak of 'spiritually' as a binary to it, because I would want to think before that if such a binary frame to interpreting the universe can be supported.)

Have you read this?

http://www.amazon.co...stephen h. webb

Just wondering.

Wow. Bookmarked.

From my LDS perspective, that the rest of the world has been and still is in a condition of apostasy, it's easy for me to understand why many people have a hard time with organized religion or even the notion of the existence of God given the overall history of religion; conflict, violence, slavery, false doctrines, unworkable/unsuccessful philosophies etc. We say "bring what truth you have with you", but the bottom line is that they have no truth sufficient for exaltation or some type of uplift and that, I think, is a real stumbling block for a real and growing faith in many people. They must have the truth brought to them and have spiritual experience(s) of some kind along with that or they remain in darkness.

I think this dovetails well with D&C 76:99-101 wherein we see strongly implied good people of all religions including Christians still on course for the lowest degree of glory at best. They must receive the testimony of Jesus by joining his Church, the LDS Church, in this life or the next in order to be uplifted.

I agree with you more or less, although I might express it differently.

It's obvious without recourse to a religious doctrine to see the misery in the world; and I can account for my own misery that I have experienced in my lifetime.

It's obvious, to me anyway, that as human beings we need some kind of help (without saying at this point in the thinking what that help might be) for that uplift you speak of.

I personally understand the necessity of covenant (baptism) and of the atonement; I think this is true and right and it is something I want everyone on the earth to have. That is why I participate, is because I think that Jesus created this organization and that he has told the truth about why we need it, etc. I can mention that in the way that I have framed my discussion and framed my own thinking, Jesus is a Man/God--a creator. And since he is who he is, his creation (his church, his atonement) is something I can trust and participate in, and it will do what it says it will.

But I do also think because of the way I have come to think of the nature of creation, the universe, the world, and our being--that our Father in heaven and our Savior--simply put, do not do everything for us. They do a lot for us; they offer. But they don't do the actual choosing. So if we have a world with Jesus's teachings in it, it is because other creators besides Jesus chose and created it. If we have a world with the variety of religions, it is because some PEOPLE did the work of thinking about them and creating them. If we have a world with every kind of voice and organization (from soccer teams to Pinetrest to neo-Nazi to ecumenical councils), then it's man-made. It's all man-made. But in this sense, the Church of Jesus Christ is also man-made (keeping in mind that 'man' and 'God' are more or less synonymous in my mind). I have a stewardship in the Church, and whether or not the boys in my ward have a fulfilling experience in Cub Scouting is up to my commitment to creating (and their own choice to participate also). If I do a bad job, then the boys might 'know' that Cub Scouting is worthless and has nothing to do with the Savior and the Church; if I do a good job or do my best, then the boys might 'know' that Cub Scouting was indispensible to building their character including their testimony of the Savior. *I* am the Creator (and they are too; they have to choose their response to either situation).

Jesus does a very good job under the circumstances of keeping his covenant pure enough to truly reflect his purpose for it. It truly represents him. However, he still lets us participate and it's our Church too. Do we seek the revelations that have been given and do we live them and do we ask for more? Do we become Saviors to the world? Do we become gods to our children and our spouses? It's up to us, to create, using the tools offered by Jesus (which I happen to believe *are* the necessary and complete (for now as presently available on earth) tools in order to reach our full potential as human beings (i.e. sanctification, exaltation). If Zion hasn't arrived in our lives personally or globally, it's not for lack of effort on Jesus of Nazareth's part; it's what WE made or didn't make.

Of course, even when I "create" my Cub Scouting stewardship, I apply personally to the help and sustaining of my Father in heaven in prayer; I don't want to do it without him. I WANT his creative power to flow through me. But I ask for his help with everything I choose. If I'm writing a song or a book or planning a curriculum--things that are man-made (maidservant-made), I still hope that I can be supported by my Father's spirit and my efforts amplified.

Speaking of other religions, while there is much (at least from the LDS point of view) to criticize creedally, man/God is still creative and active. Because if a Muslim applies to God and asks for help and creates his life and his religious practice in response to the tools he has, what has happened? Is it God made or man made? Or is it God/man made? For me in my thinking, I would say the last.

So to simply answer the question of man-made or God-made, for me at least the answer is: yes.

But you bring up further questions that I think are also important, fine-tuning issues--out of what God (or God/man) has made, what do we essentially need to be able to transform out of our misery into joy (i.e. celestial kingdom)? A river, a tree is a creation of God/somebody, it is unutterably sacred, but we don't expect it to 'save' us (or do we? some might say yes, and at this very moment I laughed and wondered if I maybe agree).

[Questing Beast]

Have you read this?

http://www.amazon.co...stephen h. webb

Just wondering.

Not heard of it before....

[Questing Beast]

Okay. I can't necessarily add anything to the discussion and I see your thought process, although I simply disagree with it, starting with the element that I don't see infinity/finiteness as a property of God either way--that it is a non-issue. But I already said that.

I could also say that we are all condescensions, but I don't normally use those terms, but I think it works well for both God and us (which, as I mentioned I don't consider to be a different ontology). I think questions that might be pertinent to these issues are: what is the basic nature of the universe to begin with (materially speaking) (or the multi-metaverse, as I like to say)?

It must be immortal if we are. That doesn't mean the matter wasn't caused to be.

Is God in or out of that universe?

Both: In as a participant; out as the Cause of Existence.

Is man or a portion of his being in or out of the universe?

We are wholly in the world. Our minds are connected to "God" continually. We apprehend only as much of "God" as our ability allows. Being immortals, this ability is continually increasing.

If there is a "whole" universe (i.e. unfallen), what is it like and how is God in that whole universe?

I believe that our natural state at the point of creation is immortal and perfect and stays that way. That "world" is inhabited by perfect manifestations of "God" in their infinite varieties. But "God In Total", as Cause, does not appear there, as that would be the destruction of space-time. Our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore our wisdom, the ability to know and appreciate Joy, is limited by our knowledge. Each of us has unique gifts, and we follow separate and unique paths to greater knowledge. Mortality is not a "fallen" world in the sense that it is lost, rather, mortality is temporary and "being there" is meant to teach, nothing more.

If we postulate a fallen universe (or? do we?), then what are we saying materially and how is that broken universe proposed to be repaired?

If the world were a lost/fallen one, then it would certainly need redeeming. I believe the concept of "Redeemer" is meant to convey the intensity of "God"'s love, but it is figurative not a literal requirement upon "God"....

Edited January 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Maidservant]

It must be immortal if we are. That doesn't mean the matter wasn't caused to be.

Both: In as a participant; out as the Cause of Existence.

We are wholly in the world. Our minds are connected to "God" continually. We apprehend only as much of "God" as our ability allows. Being immortals, this ability is continually increasing.

I believe that our natural state at the point of creation is immortal and perfect and stays that way. That "world" is inhabited by perfect manifestations of "God" in their infinite varieties. But "God In Total", as Cause, does not appear there, as that would be the destruction of space-time. Our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore our wisdom, the ability to know and appreciate Joy, is limited by our knowledge. Each of us has unique gifts, and we follow separate and unique paths to greater knowledge. Mortality is not a "fallen" world in the sense that it is lost, rather, mortality is temporary and "being there" is meant to teach, nothing more.

If the world were a lost/fallen one, then it would certainly need redeeming. I believe the concept of "Redeemer" is meant to convey the intensity of "God"'s love, but it is figurative not a literal requirement upon "God"....

Lots to think about for me. Thanks.

[Hamilton Porter]

I went to the Amazon page you posted. I saw the picture, and noticed the gaze of the onlookers in the cover picture, with a large marker stating "Click to LOOK INSIDE". I clicked to Look Inside! Boy, was I disappointed. That definitely wasn't truth in advertising. lol

You not sneaky!