Scott Lloyd Posted August 18, 2016 Author Posted August 18, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: My mistake. I misinterpreted from the first line of your OP: "I know there are those here who do love it so when I post material about religious freedom or the integral part religion plays in society." Yes, you did misinterpret. I meant when I post material about one or the other. Not necessarily both at the same time.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 18, 2016 Author Posted August 18, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Instead of bemoaning secularism, we need to go out there and convert these folks to the greatest human potential movement the world has ever known: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. But first we need to understand the gospel that way ourselves Hunkering down and avoiding secularism is the last thing we should be doing. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't improve anything. 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Well said. Amen. And I think that Elder Holland would agree with you. It would be just as unreasonable to say that secularism is entirely good as it would be to say it is entirely bad. In this instance, Elder Holland qualified his statement by adding "with its attendant cynicism toward, dismissal of and disenchantment of religion." 2
Gray Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I think that the real danger is the emergence of religions which mimic the functions of religious belief without mentioning God Ecotheology is one of these. It includes it's own ethics based on ecology, and includes religious music based on that of indigenous peoples. http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/nordic-ecotheology-you-sing-the-elements.html Mindfulness meditation is another substitute for the holy spirit for many, though of course there are also religious forms of meditation as well. http://www.mindful.org Others envision religions based on human solidarity etc We need to point these folks to the gospel I would apply the same old principles to them as to anyone else - does it bring about good fruit in their lives? If so, perhaps they're on the right spiritual path for them, even if it's a spiritual path without explicit focus on a deity object. Sometimes specific iterations of the gospel (including the LDS iteration) can bring about bad fruit in people's lives - if so, it's not for them. Having said that, I don't know anything about Ecotheology. Mindfulness definitely bears positive fruit, although mindfulness alone may be insufficient for real growth.
thesometimesaint Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 Without a deep ingrained sense of secularism religion soon takes over the functions of government and that doesn't work well.
hope_for_things Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Are you certain they "filtered" your point of view, or is that just your assumption. My observation of the Deseret News comment sections is that they are fairly open on what is allowed in terms of responsible expression of opinion. That said, the comments are indeed moderated, and one of the things they will filter out is gratuitously poking the Church of Jesus Christ or its leadership in the eye. Unfortunately, I don't know why they didn't post my comment, just that it wasn't posted. They never tell you why specifically to my knowledge, just send you a generic email.
mfbukowski Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Can you elaborate on why you consider these movements to be a danger? I think it is a mistake to leave God out of the equation This is review of a book I have read called "Religion Without God", and I think it summarizes the author, Dworkin's, position pretty well Quote Dworkin claims a religious attitude that acknowledges two things: first, human life has objective meaning and importance; second, the physical universe is something of intrinsic value and wonder. This broad and inclusive definition has a significant implication. Both theists and atheists can assent to it because it points to a shared, fundamental commitment that goes beyond their differences. In this sense, atheists can be religious, and religion does not necessarily require a god. Because religious atheists lack a god who legitimizes those values and both creates the physical universe and endows it with sublimity and beauty, they need an alternative explanation. To that end, Dworkin offers a metaphysics of value before exploring the relationship between beauty and physics. Although Dworkin does not embrace theism, his book is neither antitheistic nor pro-atheist. Rather, his novel definition of religion may serve as a way for theists and religious atheists to engage in constructive conversation. Both camps will benefit from reading Dworkin’s engaging and philosophically rigorous analysis. --Christopher McConnell https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ESK52II/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 And this is another written by Rorty, and Vattimo, both atheists. Rorty is of course one whose philosophy I admire specifically because he acknowledges both that science and religion are compatible but also because he was familiar with Mormonism and sympathetic to it as a philosophy but of course he denied the reality of God. This point of view I think is useful in communicating with those who are secularly minded- if you understand Rorty you understand the function of religion from their viewpoint. Vatimo, curiously is an extreme agnostic who sees no need for God in religion but yet curiously practices Catholicism as more of a cultural ritual than anything else. I think that parallels some inactive LDS who stay with the church and identify as "cultural Mormons". Wouldn't it be great to get those folks back? Quote Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious―ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism. https://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959 Here the "metaphysical tradition" refers to the older conceptions of God as a vague transcendent spirit filling the universe, or Trinitarian notions based on "substance" which these philosophers see as linguistic confusions I think that if we were able to teach OUR concept of a "human" God who is a "friend" of mankind, and actually our Father, and that we can have endless potential even after death with such a belief, it might communicate to some. We are not going to get everyone, but even if we bring back one and convert another, it will have been worth it And I see the potential of doing much better than that!! The key is feeling God as a PERSON and acknowledging that a personal God is an intellectual possibility. Once they feel that, I think the logic of our position becomes strong. If God exists as a person who can be seen as a "Super Human" and IS in some sense the father of our intelligence and all that it is to be human, and that, using the philosophy of Kant, that humans "organize reality from matter unorganized" (our terminology - Kant's philosophy) then we are VERY close to the Mormon conception of God. That happiness requires families and the idea of being together forever is yet another step- that is pure pragmatism. "Forever families" is a concept which is extremely useful in generating attitudes of love and gentleness in the home, and additionally it has great appeal. Mormonism is a very pragmatic religion, its beliefs are powerful enough to keep even non-believers as "cultural Mormons" We can use that power to go out and find others willing to feel God's spirit if we use that approach, I am convinced. I think Mormonism is the most powerful idea that Mankind, including the Man of Holiness, can even conceive. We just have to get that message out there in terms independent of young earth creationism etc which actually MAY be "correct" but does not communicate anymore. We need to separate these important ideas from science completely, because as long as science and religion are in competition in people's minds, they will never understand religion. We have folks right here on this board who just cannot see that distinction, and holding on to that has been destructive to their religious lives. You see it here every day. Historicity of religion and Scientism are the real enemies of religion- not secularism. That takes us backwards to pre-Copernican times. Scientific "facts" have nothing to do with scripture, and seeing the resurrection as a historical is itself a religious position. I personally am positive that the resurrection "really happened" three real days after a real crucifixion, and gave us a real atonement- but I see that as a RELIGIOUS belief that cannot in principle be scientifically proven If on the other hand, religion is seen as a philosophy of life and as practical solutions for living a happy life, everything changes. That does not diminish religion, it makes it rational and infinitely powerful and beyond disproof by the silly atheists we find in every discussion, and their agnostic cronies. To me it is the ultimate apologetic position- it cannot be refuted. But first you have to SEE that.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 14 hours ago, Flexible said: Not a coincidence that many of the countries on SkepticChristian's lists are also on this one. Is wealth more important than religion in creating a stable, moral; society? Probably, there is no evidence that religion makes a society more peaceful. In fact, a study concluded that, "Across all countries, parents in religious house- holds reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior." http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf 3 hours ago, Gray said: I wonder how Elder Holland would define "moral"? Is morality something that exists outside of religious paradigms? Is it independent of religion? If not, then I can't make much sense of his statement. 15 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Where is the evidence that religion is necessary for a peaceful society? Top Ten Least Corrupt Countries Denmark Finland Sweden New Zealand Norway Netherlands Switzerland Singapore Canada Germany Source: Corruption Perceptions Index 2015 Top Ten Most Peaceful Countries Iceland Denmark Austria New Zealand Portugal Czech Republic Switzerland Canada Japan Slovenia Source: Global Peace Index rankings Top Ten Happiest Countries Denmark Switzerland Iceland Norway Findland Netherlands New Zealand Austria Sweden Source: World Happiness Report Poverty https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html
mfbukowski Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I would apply the same old principles to them as to anyone else - does it bring about good fruit in their lives? If so, perhaps they're on the right spiritual path for them, even if it's a spiritual path without explicit focus on a deity object. Sometimes specific iterations of the gospel (including the LDS iteration) can bring about bad fruit in people's lives - if so, it's not for them. Having said that, I don't know anything about Ecotheology. Mindfulness definitely bears positive fruit, although mindfulness alone may be insufficient for real growth. I have been engaged in "mindfulness meditation" for 25 years or so under various names, arguably it is virtually the same as "Shikantaza" meditation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikantaza At a certain point it becomes extremely difficult to separate this technique from deliberately "listening to the spirit" and receiving insights, which one "files away" for later contemplation. When one is able to meditate continuously by keeping that attitude throughout the day, putting the difference between THAT and the "constant companionship of the Holy Spirit" into words is virtually impossible. I am not saying they are the "same"- I think the Holy Spirit is clearly a BEING outside yourself while meditation is communication with your unconscious self. But that statement itself - that charactization - doesn't really communicate well. The problem is telling people the difference. The words don't work. So for all linguistic purposes I guess the differences must be ignored. But they are there That's why I don't like "Mindfulness" as a label because it is not personal and I think it must be personal to be "religious" God is real. He is out there. We feel Him inside though so that distinction is impossible to define
hope_for_things Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I think it is a mistake to leave God out of the equation This is review of a book I have read called "Religion Without God", and I think it summarizes the author, Dworkin's, position pretty well https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ESK52II/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 And this is another written by Rorty, and Vattimo, both atheists. Rorty is of course one whose philosophy I admire specifically because he acknowledges both that science and religion are compatible but also because he was familiar with Mormonism and sympathetic to it as a philosophy but of course he denied the reality of God. This point of view I think is useful in communicating with those who are secularly minded- if you understand Rorty you understand the function of religion from their viewpoint. Vatimo, curiously is an extreme agnostic who sees no need for God in religion but yet curiously practices Catholicism as more of a cultural ritual than anything else. I think that parallels some inactive LDS who stay with the church and identify as "cultural Mormons". Wouldn't it be great to get those folks back? https://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959 Here the "metaphysical tradition" refers to the older conceptions of God as a vague transcendent spirit filling the universe, or Trinitarian notions based on "substance" which these philosophers see as linguistic confusions I think that if we were able to teach OUR concept of a "human" God who is a "friend" of mankind, and actually our Father, and that we can have endless potential even after death with such a belief, it might communicate to some. We are not going to get everyone, but even if we bring back one and convert another, it will have been worth it And I see the potential of doing much better than that!! The key is feeling God as a PERSON and acknowledging that a personal God is an intellectual possibility. Once they feel that, I think the logic of our position becomes strong. If God exists as a person who can be seen as a "Super Human" and IS in some sense the father of our intelligence and all that it is to be human, and that, using the philosophy of Kant, that humans "organize reality from matter unorganized" (our terminology - Kant's philosophy) then we are VERY close to the Mormon conception of God. That happiness requires families and the idea of being together forever is yet another step- that is pure pragmatism. "Forever families" is a concept which is extremely useful in generating attitudes of love and gentleness in the home, and additionally it has great appeal. Mormonism is a very pragmatic religion, its beliefs are powerful enough to keep even non-believers as "cultural Mormons" We can use that power to go out and find others willing to feel God's spirit if we use that approach, I am convinced. I think Mormonism is the most powerful idea that Mankind, including the Man of Holiness, can even conceive. We just have to get that message out there in terms independent of young earth creationism etc which actually MAY be "correct" but does not communicate anymore. We need to separate these important ideas from science completely, because as long as science and religion are in competition in people's minds, they will never understand religion. We have folks right here on this board who just cannot see that distinction, and holding on to that has been destructive to their religious lives. You see it here every day. Historicity of religion and Scientism are the real enemies of religion- not secularism. That takes us backwards to pre-Copernican times. Scientific "facts" have nothing to do with scripture, and seeing the resurrection as a historical is itself a religious position. I personally am positive that the resurrection "really happened" three real days after a real crucifixion, and gave us a real atonement- but I see that as a RELIGIOUS belief that cannot in principle be scientifically proven If on the other hand, religion is seen as a philosophy of life and as practical solutions for living a happy life, everything changes. That does not diminish religion, it makes it rational and infinitely powerful and beyond disproof by the silly atheists we find in every discussion, and their agnostic cronies. To me it is the ultimate apologetic position- it cannot be refuted. But first you have to SEE that. I have to thank you for the book quotes, this is extremely helpful, and now I have a couple new books on my future reading list. Dworkin sounds very interesting and seems to resonate with what I've been thinking lately. I like the mystery of the universe, and I feel there is something wonderful and majestic and transcendent about it. I feel like there is a purpose to its existence and to my place in it, even though I logically can't explain that purpose. This broader definition is something I can feel good about. As for specific theological propositions of Mormonism, I'm going through that questioning faze still. First, I question the value of a humanized God. I like the idea of God loving us as a parent loves its child, but I don't extend that to thinking of God as a human being. If God were a glorified human being as Mormonism espouses, then why all the pain and suffering. It doesn't satisfy the problem of evil question, and Joseph's liberty jail explanation of this being for our good, doesn't satisfy me as adequate. I see God as not involved in our everyday lives, similar to a deist mindset, but at the same time I wonder about my personal spiritual experiences. I can't exactly explain them and I can't chalk them all up to coincidence. Sure, they could be happening inside my head, but that doesn't explain them to my satisfaction either. I'm willing to leave them as unsatisfied for the time being. The resurrection I have a harder time believing than anything else you mentioned. Actually the whole atonement is a big problem for me. I have a hard time accepting the pagan influences of sacrifice to satisfy sin. None of that is uplifting to me. If there is a God, I have to believe in a God that can forgive sin without requiring a sacrifice to do it. I love many of the teachings of Christianity though. I'm a buffet believer in the Christian message. Lastly, I've found it very hard to hold on to any supernatural beliefs. My faith journey has caused me to be extremely skeptical of spiritual experiences. I told you that I've had personal experiences I can't explain, but I'm not willing to just attribute them to a divine source. I think there could be very plausible explanations for what was happening, that I can't understand today because of my limited knowledge in 2016. With continued scientific advancement, I expect that many of the things that our current culture attributes to the supernatural, will have very good natural explanations for in the future. I don't feel like I can ever believe in a magical God again (my old paradigm was a very supernatural one). I think the kind of God I could believe in, might not be the same one you describe. However, I'd like to think that we could find much in common in our ethical and moral compass. I'd like to think that perhaps there will be a place for me at a religious table in the future. I've gotten so much good from my Mormonism, it has shaped me in countless ways and is a part of me.
mfbukowski Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 Just saw an ad for a new TV show "He doesn't have a superpower- his superpower is his BRAIN" It's about a character who solves things we could not solve because of his superior intelligence. THAT'S the way we need to think about God, in my book- but he is INFINITELY more intelligent William James talks about God as a "Chessmaster" who is like us but infinitely intelligent, and we are like chess beginners. He doesn't need to be "omniscient" in a conventional sense, implying problems with our agency etc- those are all philosophical linguistic problems generated by the idea of "omnipotence" itself. "Can God create a boulder...." etc But God as Infinite Chessmaster always can instantly see a "move" to work his purposes through even though he also lives with an indeterminate future as we do. He turns every event to his purposes and always "wins" because his intelligence is so advanced, so that no matter what happens he "sees a way around" the problem so problems and challenges don't exist. That also takes care of being "omnipotent" as well. This is the kind of thinking that thinks around the traditional problems of omniscience and omnipotence and could be presented to secularists as explanations for God and avoiding the traditional theological "problems" This is how our philosophy is superior to traditional Christianity and can communicate to secularism while they are stuck trying to explain how three "beings" can be one "substance" or why omniscience does not interfere with our agency As chess novices, we still have our agency complete and make our moves without influence from anyone. But the chessMaster can turn those moves we freely make to the purposes which he wants to accomplish
mfbukowski Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I have to thank you for the book quotes, this is extremely helpful, and now I have a couple new books on my future reading list. Dworkin sounds very interesting and seems to resonate with what I've been thinking lately. I like the mystery of the universe, and I feel there is something wonderful and majestic and transcendent about it. I feel like there is a purpose to its existence and to my place in it, even though I logically can't explain that purpose. This broader definition is something I can feel good about. As for specific theological propositions of Mormonism, I'm going through that questioning faze still. First, I question the value of a humanized God. I like the idea of God loving us as a parent loves its child, but I don't extend that to thinking of God as a human being. If God were a glorified human being as Mormonism espouses, then why all the pain and suffering. It doesn't satisfy the problem of evil question, and Joseph's liberty jail explanation of this being for our good, doesn't satisfy me as adequate. I see God as not involved in our everyday lives, similar to a deist mindset, but at the same time I wonder about my personal spiritual experiences. I can't exactly explain them and I can't chalk them all up to coincidence. Sure, they could be happening inside my head, but that doesn't explain them to my satisfaction either. I'm willing to leave them as unsatisfied for the time being. The resurrection I have a harder time believing than anything else you mentioned. Actually the whole atonement is a big problem for me. I have a hard time accepting the pagan influences of sacrifice to satisfy sin. None of that is uplifting to me. If there is a God, I have to believe in a God that can forgive sin without requiring a sacrifice to do it. I love many of the teachings of Christianity though. I'm a buffet believer in the Christian message. Lastly, I've found it very hard to hold on to any supernatural beliefs. My faith journey has caused me to be extremely skeptical of spiritual experiences. I told you that I've had personal experiences I can't explain, but I'm not willing to just attribute them to a divine source. I think there could be very plausible explanations for what was happening, that I can't understand today because of my limited knowledge in 2016. With continued scientific advancement, I expect that many of the things that our current culture attributes to the supernatural, will have very good natural explanations for in the future. I don't feel like I can ever believe in a magical God again (my old paradigm was a very supernatural one). I think the kind of God I could believe in, might not be the same one you describe. However, I'd like to think that we could find much in common in our ethical and moral compass. I'd like to think that perhaps there will be a place for me at a religious table in the future. I've gotten so much good from my Mormonism, it has shaped me in countless ways and is a part of me. Mormonism properly understood, at least in the gospel according to Bukowski is in principle not "supernatural" at all but is within us One cannot define properly (not saying they are not different) "the spirit" from our own "unconscious" Mormons are materialists- "spirit is matter more refined" I see the atonement as simply knowing that if you repent- do everything you possibly can do to fix what you have messed up- then you are forgiven through belief and following Christ to the best of your ability. "We are saved by grace after all we can do"- no pagan sacrifice required. I do not pretend to know the mechanics of the atonement and the justice and mercy balance idea- I am positive SOMETHING happened I cannot explain to allow us to be resurrected. I do believe that resurrection is possible though means we do not and never will understand scientifially, not because it is "supernatural" but somehow it has to be tied up with spirit being material. I know that even just the plain old human mind is extremely powerful. It has been shown that cancer victims can get some degree of remission by simply thinking about attacking the cancer cells. Is that spiritual or "mental"? Semantics! We all know the "placebo effect" actually works- we CAN be cured "psychosomatically" . What does that mean? Spirit or mind? Semantics!! And that is just US with our little paltry brains. What if there IS a God with a super human intelligence? Can he order the cells of our body through the power of HIS mind? Why not? I find the idea of God as the Father of humanity very comforting- that we ARE all brothers and sisters. Why not just accept that pragmatically as a good way of thinking about others?? Spiritual experiences are subjective thoughts about what is good for us- where they come from cannot be linguistically defined really. Are they the "unconsious"? I don't believe so but what is the practical difference if we "follow our gut" instead of "follow the spirit?" The practical difference to how we practice our lives is nil Anyway that is how I see things. Secular ideas are compatible with Mormonism, just using different language
Johnnie Cake Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 CFR that Religion is crucial to a moral, peaceful society
hope_for_things Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Mormonism properly understood, at least in the gospel according to Bukowski is in principle not "supernatural" at all but is within us One cannot define properly (not saying they are not different) "the spirit" from our own "unconscious" Mormons are materialists- "spirit is matter more refined" I see the atonement as simply knowing that if you repent- do everything you possibly can do to fix what you have messed up- then you are forgiven through belief and following Christ to the best of your ability. "We are saved by grace after all we can do"- no pagan sacrifice required. I do not pretend to know the mechanics of the atonement and the justice and mercy balance idea- I am positive SOMETHING happened I cannot explain to allow us to be resurrected. I do believe that resurrection is possible though means we do not and never will understand scientifially, not because it is "supernatural" but somehow it has to be tied up with spirit being material. I know that even just the plain old human mind is extremely powerful. It has been shown that cancer victims can get some degree of remission by simply thinking about attacking the cancer cells. Is that spiritual or "mental"? Semantics! We all know the "placebo effect" actually works- we CAN be cured "psychosomatically" . What does that mean? Spirit or mind? Semantics!! And that is just US with our little paltry brains. What if there IS a God with a super human intelligence? Can he order the cells of our body through the power of HIS mind? Why not? I find the idea of God as the Father of humanity very comforting- that we ARE all brothers and sisters. Why not just accept that pragmatically as a good way of thinking about others?? Spiritual experiences are subjective thoughts about what is good for us- where they come from cannot be linguistically defined really. Are they the "unconsious"? I don't believe so but what is the practical difference if we "follow our gut" instead of "follow the spirit?" The practical difference to how we practice our lives is nil Anyway that is how I see things. Secular ideas are compatible with Mormonism, just using different language Almost thou persuadest me to be a Bukowskian(sp?) :-) I still have a problem with God as a man, and as a super human, but I can find value with most of the rest of this. Using different language is the piece I'm still working on. I feel like some progressive Mormon's use this skill very effectively to navigate their relationships with local members and to largely go undetected. Part of me admires this ability, but the other part of me thinks this is being duplicitous. I'm also working on being more vulnerable and honest in my relationships, and for me that manifests with explaining very frankly how I see things. I do this kindly, but I don't want people to get the impression that we agree when in reality I have a very different perspective. This is a personal thing I'm working on because my Mormonism taught me to put on appearances, and I'm trying to unlearn that behavior now.
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I still have a problem with God as a man, and as a super human And that is one of the things I find most worthy of worship in God. The fact that he can start out a mortal like us and be perfected enough to become God is a being most worthy of worship and admiration. I find little to worship in a God that is a supernatural all powerful always-existed being who made men for some reason. 2
hope_for_things Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: And that is one of the things I find most worthy of worship in God. The fact that he can start out a mortal like us and be perfected enough to become God is a being most worthy of worship and admiration. I find little to worship in a God that is a supernatural all powerful always-existed being who made men for some reason. I too like the concept of eternal progression, whether that means I can progress to eventual God status or not, I don't know, but I like the concept of learning and growth in the next life. I just think that if we humanize God, then God has a lot of explaining to do for how the world works and the stuffing that exists in it. I don't personally believe in an all powerful God., and I don't think Mormonism requires one either. I'm not sure about always existing, I can't really comprehend eternity with my limited brain power. 1
orangganjil Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The resurrection I have a harder time believing than anything else you mentioned. Actually the whole atonement is a big problem for me. I have a hard time accepting the pagan influences of sacrifice to satisfy sin. None of that is uplifting to me. If there is a God, I have to believe in a God that can forgive sin without requiring a sacrifice to do it. I love many of the teachings of Christianity though. I'm a buffet believer in the Christian message. I have never posted here before but have lurked for a long time. I wanted to maybe offer a slightly different view of the Atonement than most people maintain. I don't know if it will offer an alternative perspective for you, but it's probably worth a try. I believe that this entire existence, including the idea of religion, church, family, society, etc., is simply a construct in which we are to learn love. By learning love, we are fashioned into the image of God. I believe love is how God governs and that it is the source of his power. If we want to be like him, we must learn love (see Moroni 7:48 - what does it take to be a son of God and to be like him?). The chosen people (Israel) weren't chosen because they were something special, but rather they were to carry the burden of reflecting the image of God into the world, showing people that God is a god of love, not a petty, vengeful god. They failed at this responsibility and assumed that they were something special, standing apart from, and looking down upon, the rest of society. Jesus came to demonstrate the image of God. He came to show how a king in the kingdom of heaven is supposed to act. He showed what it takes to be a son of God, for it was by love that he obtained that title. I don't believe he had to die on the cross or be killed in order to fulfill his mission. Rather, I believe he had to love completely, which meant he submitted himself to the whims of others. He taught and practiced love, eventually coming into conflict with those who would cling to power and authority rather than embrace that message of love. When they struck him, he didn't return the blow. He was willing to go even to death rather than return hate for hate, violence for violence, etc. Rather than use his power for gain or to compel others, or even to fight back against injustice committed against himself, he suffered at the hand of others, returning love for all that they did to him. It is by his love - his unending, complete love - that he won the right to be Son of God and inherit all that the Father has. The sacrifice he made wasn't the act of death at someone else's hands, like some lamb led to the slaughter. Rather, his sacrifice was extending love to all, even to the point of experiencing death in the most shameful manner of that era. He didn't lash out at injustice, but submitted, respected agency, and loved anyway, purchasing an inheritance from the Father. He then extends to us the offer to share in that inheritance if we will learn to love as he does. In that way he uses his power to forgive our sins and make us like him - inheritors of all the Father has. Just my perspective.
mfbukowski Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) Error Edited August 19, 2016 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 42 minutes ago, orangganjil said: I have never posted here before but have lurked for a long time. I wanted to maybe offer a slightly different view of the Atonement than most people maintain. I don't know if it will offer an alternative perspective for you, but it's probably worth a try. I believe that this entire existence, including the idea of religion, church, family, society, etc., is simply a construct in which we are to learn love. By learning love, we are fashioned into the image of God. I believe love is how God governs and that it is the source of his power. If we want to be like him, we must learn love (see Moroni 7:48 - what does it take to be a son of God and to be like him?). The chosen people (Israel) weren't chosen because they were something special, but rather they were to carry the burden of reflecting the image of God into the world, showing people that God is a god of love, not a petty, vengeful god. They failed at this responsibility and assumed that they were something special, standing apart from, and looking down upon, the rest of society. Jesus came to demonstrate the image of God. He came to show how a king in the kingdom of heaven is supposed to act. He showed what it takes to be a son of God, for it was by love that he obtained that title. I don't believe he had to die on the cross or be killed in order to fulfill his mission. Rather, I believe he had to love completely, which meant he submitted himself to the whims of others. He taught and practiced love, eventually coming into conflict with those who would cling to power and authority rather than embrace that message of love. When they struck him, he didn't return the blow. He was willing to go even to death rather than return hate for hate, violence for violence, etc. Rather than use his power for gain or to compel others, or even to fight back against injustice committed against himself, he suffered at the hand of others, returning love for all that they did to him. It is by his love - his unending, complete love - that he won the right to be Son of God and inherit all that the Father has. The sacrifice he made wasn't the act of death at someone else's hands, like some lamb led to the slaughter. Rather, his sacrifice was extending love to all, even to the point of experiencing death in the most shameful manner of that era. He didn't lash out at injustice, but submitted, respected agency, and loved anyway, purchasing an inheritance from the Father. He then extends to us the offer to share in that inheritance if we will learn to love as he does. In that way he uses his power to forgive our sins and make us like him - inheritors of all the Father has. Just my perspective. Very interesting idea! Thanks!
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: CFR that Religion is crucial to a moral, peaceful society To whom is this issued? Elder Holland? As far as I know, he doesn't post here.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: CFR that Religion is crucial to a moral, peaceful society You don't believe it. That's fine. You're welcome, along with anyone else, to not believe it. Conversely, I believe that you're mistaken, but you're welcome to not believe it. I happen to find the evidence that can be marshalled in support of the assertion more persuasive than you do. Essentially, though, you're CFR-ing an opinion, and that's not gonna work. What're you gonna do, report Scott to the mods if he doesn't answer your ridiculous CFR? Yeah, in the immortal words of Dr. Phil, lemme know how that works for you. Edited August 19, 2016 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 6 hours ago, orangganjil said: ... I don't believe he [Christ] had to die on the cross or be killed in order to fulfill his mission. ... Mmm-kay. How long has it been since you're attended an endowment session in the temple? If one listens well enough, I think one will find that the opposite point is made absolutely crystal clear there, not just once, but repeatedly. And the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are not in accord with that idea. Yes, Christ is a great teacher (that's why He's called Rabbi), but so is the leader of every signficant religious movement one can name. By contrast, Christ is not just Rabbi, He is Savior. Even if we, ourselves, commit no sin, while we as Latter-day Saints reject the traditional idea of original sin, without the Atonement (including Christ's death on the cross), our souls would automatically be subject to the Adversary because of the Fall (see 2 Nephi 9). What "cup" was Christ asking be taken from him if it wasn't the necessity of dying on the cross (see Luke 22:42)? As God the Son, Christ had the power to live forever and to not die, but the Father commanded Christ to lay down his life (see John 10:17-18). I bear you no personal ill will. Indeed, I wish you well, and I bid you a hearty hail and welcome to the Board and out of "lurk" mode. That said, I believe you are gravely mistaken, and I cannot, simply in the name of good will, let the idea that the Atonement is unnecessary go unchallenged.
halconero Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Mmm-kay. How long has it been since you're attended an endowment session in the temple? If one listens well enough, I think one will find that the opposite point is made absolutely crystal clear there, not just once, but repeatedly. And the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are not in accord with that idea. Yes, Christ is a great teacher (that's why He's called Rabbi), but so is the leader of every signficant religious movement one can name. By contrast, Christ is not just Rabbi, He is Savior. Even if we, ourselves, commit no sin, while we as Latter-day Saints reject the traditional idea of original sin, without the Atonement (including Christ's death on the cross), our souls would automatically be subject to the Adversary because of the Fall (see 2 Nephi 9). What "cup" was Christ asking be taken from him if it wasn't the necessity of dying on the cross (see Luke 22:42)? As God the Son, Christ had the power to live forever and to not die, but the Father commanded Christ to lay down his life (see John 10:17-18). I bear you no personal ill will. Indeed, I wish you well, and I bid you a hearty hail and welcome to the Board and out of "lurk" mode. That said, I believe you are gravely mistaken, and I cannot, simply in the name of good will, let the idea that the Atonement is unnecessary go unchallenged. It's most certainly a modern perspective not present in any of the Gospels. In fact, objections to Christ dying are met with strong rebukes from Jesus. I believe at one point he even calls Peter "Satan" for objecting to his death. It's a strong rebuke, but perhaps fitting given Satan means "adversary, or one who plots against," given that an objection to Christ's atoning sacrifice is adversarial to the plan of redemption. Edited August 19, 2016 by halconero 1
Johnnie Cake Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) Quote Scott Lloyd: To whom is this issued? Elder Holland? As far as I know, he doesn't post here. Interesting...I was placed on a limited 12 posts a day ban for not responding to a CFR while I was out of town (for what its worth)...I guess all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others... Edit to add: Its very evident that the premise this claim is built upon is a false Premise...all one needs to do is to look at any (pick one) Scandinavian Country who are all peaceful and moral countries and might I add Happy despite being secular societies Edited August 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Storm Rider Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 On 8/17/2016 at 11:06 PM, TheSkepticChristian said: Where is the evidence that religion is necessary for a peaceful society? Top Ten Least Corrupt Countries Denmark Finland Sweden New Zealand Norway Netherlands Switzerland Singapore Canada Germany Source: Corruption Perceptions Index 2015 Top Ten Most Peaceful Countries Iceland Denmark Austria New Zealand Portugal Czech Republic Switzerland Canada Japan Slovenia Source: Global Peace Index rankings Top Ten Happiest Countries Denmark Switzerland Iceland Norway Findland Netherlands New Zealand Austria Sweden Source: World Happiness Report Poverty https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html Please identify one of those countries that does not have a distinct religious heritage.
Storm Rider Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Interesting...I was placed on a limited 12 posts a day ban for not responding to a CFR while I was out of town (for what its worth)...I guess all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others... Edit to add: Its very evident that the premise this claim is built upon is a false Premise...all one needs to do is to look at any (pick one) Scandinavian Country who are all peaceful and moral countries and might I add Happy despite being secular societies Yes, this gets used a lot. Tell me which one of those Scandinavian countries does not have a Christian heritage? Just one? Now, after overcoming that bit of nonsense, please share with us how heritage and history have zero impact on a nation, its people, and its culture?
Recommended Posts