hope_for_things Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Since we in mortal life don't know what it is will be needed to experience in order to become like God. It is best we not judge God. Sometimes it is our suffering that helps others to become more like God through service to us. But if God is love and if God has the power to alleviate suffering, how do we explain the fact that suffering seems to be unfair and unnecessary. It seems like a nice concept in theory the idea that suffering helps us to become more like God, but that can't be the case if you look at all forms of suffering, and I could list some examples here, but it always makes my stomach turn and my heart ache to think about specific examples of suffering that are so violent and sad and unnecessary. I'm not judging God BTW, I'm judging the constructs that humans use to explain God. 2
hope_for_things Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 23 minutes ago, orangganjil said: I can see what you mean here. You reject labels, including the label of gender, for God. I think you're onto something here. Orthodox Mormons are inconsistent on this point. They maintain two, opposed viewpoints: 1) Gender, and gender characteristics, are eternal in nature; 2) Jesus, through the Atonement, understands all pain, suffering, thoughts, etc. for all people. So, if Jesus truly understands all aspects of "maleness" as well as all aspects of "femaleness", why does his gender matter? If we boil it down, he understands all aspects of what it means to be a man as well as a woman. If it were otherwise, he wouldn't be able to succor everyone and his Atonement would become finite. In effect, Jesus took upon himself all labels - male, female, lesbian, gay, black, white, fat, skinny, smart, dumb, etc. - and when one has all labels ascribed to him/her, all labels become meaningless. Essentially, by taking all labels upon himself, he rendered labels meaningless. To take it further, if we are to be come like Jesus, we too must take all labels upon us. Eventually, if I am to be like him, I too must fully understand what it means to be female. My wife must understand what it means to be male - in fullness. Otherwise, we can't be like God. In effect, gender becomes meaningless at that point and there are no eternal characteristics of gender. It is why that assertion in the Proclamation on the Family doesn't make any sense. Yes, on your first point about gender. Mormons read the proclamation and unnecessarily apply the language universally. Just because it says gender is eternal, doesn't mean that gender is static for eternity. Why not eternal and fluid at the same time? To me this isn't an incompatible thought. Eternal just means that it lasts forever and eternal life means to be with God forever. So why not eternally with God and eternally fluid? Maybe a stretch for most Mormons. 2nd point on Jesus understanding all suffering. I like this concept a lot as long as its not literal. I've heard some theories on the atonement that make a person feel so much shame for sins committed that they make it sounds like every mistake we make actually causes another drop of blood that Jesus has to atone for. This calculus of the atonement idea that somehow there is an eternal scale and that every mistake has to be literally accounted for I don't like it at all. But I love the idea that deity can and does understand our suffering at a personal level, and can comfort and succor us. This is powerful and I've experienced this kind of empathy before and it has been a balm for me in my life. I love this. Your last paragraph about how we are to become is amazing. Thank you for thinking through that next step. We need to take all of these labels upon us to take up our cross and become like the savior. That is powerful stuff, and seems to exemplify what it means to be a savior on mount zion. How cool is that! I love it! 1
Gray Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I have no problem with any of this, it's just that it doesn't match my own personal experience. I am aware of an Intelligence out there- which is no part of me or my mind- who is looking out for my welfare and is able to change situations to help me achieve what I really need as opposed to what I may want. That's my experience and I cannot speak for anyone else. I think it is clear however that to create communication with people who see it as I do and people who see it as you do, we need some ability to "translate" between the personal and non-personal vocabularies or understand and account for a real difference in experiences. I think what can foster a friendly religious pluralism (even if it's plural theologies from people within the same church) is the general utilitarian approach that we both take. If it bears good fruit, then you're doing something right. Being able to validate each other's theologies (while maintaining our own distinctiveness) is so important. Absolutely if a personal and human God works best for you, you should stick with it. Quote But aside from this very pointed subjective discussion about how we experience this feeling as a personal "God" or not, I think we need to postulate that the OTHER feelings- peace, contentment, a sense of unity with the world, a sense of purpose, of enduring happiness and fulfillment are what life is about. Absolutely. Quote We need to acknowledge that we would all like to be in a family which could exist forever- either as a fantasy or a reality We all need to acknowledge that we want to be the best kind of human being we can, that we need to love others as we love ourselves, and know that we as humans are all in this thing together and need to get our acts together and quit stomping on each other to get ahead. I expect that traditionalists will have more problems with these linguistic shifts than others, but we who are believers in a personal God will have to learn how to translate our feelings objectively so that others can understand what we are talking about, by speaking about the "voice within" or "communicating with the best within ourselves" to communicate with those who do NOT verbally interpret these as a person. Mormonism is not secularism and indeed THIS is the exact point of departure- whether or not we experience these as a "person" or not. This is a valid distinction which legitimately separates us, but my point is that it is perhaps the ONLY one If we can see how religion FUNCTIONS in our lives- as opposed to seeing these as "different beliefs" we will go a long way toward unity. The FUNCTION of religious beliefs is the same for everyone regardless of whether we see a personal God as the source of these feelings. But I think as Mormons we need to know how close we are to those who believe and see the world much as we do but do not acknowledge a personal God And if we can convey this closeness to the secular world, I think there will be many who now think of themselves as secularists who really DO feel a personal presence "out there" but do not presently have the vocabulary to express it- will suddenly understand what they never understood before, and join us. I think you're right there. Often divisions are more about vocabulary than substance. Edited August 19, 2016 by Gray 1
Flexible Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Thanks! and here it is again and Flexible made an interesting point The richest country (the USA) is never on the top ten. Here is the list of top 10 GDP per capita (richest) countries. USA has rarely if ever been on this list. But there's a lot of overlap between this list and SkepticChristian's. Not surprisingly. Much smaller populations and much more spending per capita on social safety net framework. Makes for a much more ordered and regimented society. List of Top 10 Richest Countries in The World by GDP Per Capita Ranks Country Capital Currency US $ 1. Luxembourg Luxembourg Euro 115,809 2. Qatar Doha Riyal 98,144 3. Norway Oslo Norwegian krone 97,607 4. Switzerland Swiss franc Swiss franc (CHF) 83,073 5. Australia Canberra Australian dollar (AUD) 66,371 6. United Arab Emirates Abu Dhabi UAE dirham (AED) 63,626 7. Denmark Copenhagen Danish krone 59,709 8. Sweden Stockholm Swedish krona (SEK) 57,638 9. Canada Ottawa Canadian dollar 50,496 10. Netherlands
Kenngo1969 Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 19 hours ago, hope_for_things said: ... I don't like thinking of God as a male anymore. I find this too discriminatory to women. This is part of why I don't like to think of God as a human person, because the God that I envision is a God that encompasses all the attributes of men and women equally, not a God that just represents one gender. ... Good news! You have a Mother in Heaven as well as a Father in Heaven, neither of whom would have achieved their present status or stature without the other. 3
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, hope_for_things said: But if God is love and if God has the power to alleviate suffering, how do we explain the fact that suffering seems to be unfair and unnecessary. It seems like a nice concept in theory the idea that suffering helps us to become more like God, but that can't be the case if you look at all forms of suffering, and I could list some examples here, but it always makes my stomach turn and my heart ache to think about specific examples of suffering that are so violent and sad and unnecessary. I'm not judging God BTW, I'm judging the constructs that humans use to explain God. Christ suffered for the sins of all that he might succor all. Christ gives sight to man born blind. SEE https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/videos/jesus-heals-a-man-born-blind?lang=eng Edited August 20, 2016 by thesometimesaint
DBMormon Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 I think it can be reasonably argued that most mass violence has a religious motive at heart. I think it can be argued that Religion is a major contributor of violence in this world and that if all were atheists that many wars and mass killings would have never occurred. 2
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 6 minutes ago, DBMormon said: I think it can be reasonably argued that most mass violence has a religious motive at heart. I think it can be argued that Religion is a major contributor of violence in this world and that if all were atheists that many wars and mass killings would have never occurred. I think it can be reasonably argued that most mass violence has power as it's motive. Whether that is political, financial, or religious is largely irrelevant as it all comes back to power. And atheists like power as much as anyone else. 3
rockpond Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I think it can be reasonably argued that most mass violence has power as it's motive. Whether that is political, financial, or religious is largely irrelevant as it all comes back to power. And atheists like power as much as anyone else. While that is true, the single most serious threat to world peace at this time (ISIS) is a religiously motivated group. A group whose actions are driven by their religious belief in their divine calling to usher in the apocalypse.
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: While that is true, the single most serious threat to world peace at this time (ISIS) is a religiously motivated group. A group whose actions are driven by their religious belief in their divine calling to usher in the apocalypse. Yes, and in the first part of the twentieth century the world was nearly destroyed and millions were killed by leaders who fought against religions (despite have religious beliefs themselves). 1
bcuzbcuz Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 On 18 August 2016 at 1:30 AM, Scott Lloyd said: 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. So this one's for them. Elder Holland gave the keynote for BYU Campus Education Week going on right now. Wouldn't this mean that truly religious people would be the most moral, the most truthful, the ones least likely to commit crimes? Are there any statistics to prove such a point?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 20, 2016 Author Posted August 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Wouldn't this mean that truly religious people would be the most moral, the most truthful, the ones least likely to commit crimes? Are there any statistics to prove such a point? The operative phrase, I suppose, being "truly religious." There are many hypocrites and posers afoot. But since you use the phrase, look up the term "true religion" in the epistle of James and ponder whether the world wouldn't be a better place if more people took that to heart. 1
Five Solas Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The operative phrase, I suppose, being "truly religious." There are many hypocrites and posers afoot. But since you use the phrase, look up the term "true religion" in the epistle of James and ponder whether the world wouldn't be a better place if more people took that to heart. It's a weird thing for you to be defending religion in such a generic, inclusive sense, Scott. Do you really think "true religion" existed for James apart from Jesus? Do you really think the mere state of being "religious" accomplishes good? Let's not pick on Islam, let's take an example closer to home--the Native American "Ghost Dance" religious movement that swept across numerous tribes in the late 19th century. Use Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar. And then, please put it into context as Holland would have us understand religion & its benefits for society. --Erik
bcuzbcuz Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The operative phrase, I suppose, being "truly religious." There are many hypocrites and posers afoot. But since you use the phrase, look up the term "true religion" in the epistle of James and ponder whether the world wouldn't be a better place if more people took that to heart. Your response is somewhat ambiguous. Just where in James do you want me to look? You probably are aware of the how the epistle of James was regarded in low esteem by Martin Luther (since you served in a Lutheran mission). The article by David M Whitchurch, BYU, "Discipleship and the Epistle of James" covers the question of authorship of James, Athough not nearly as well as the writings of Bart Ehrman. So James talks about the value of deeds over words, but then, James probably didn't write it.......so whose deeds should we evaluate? Truly religious? A person whose deeds speak louder than their proclaimed beliefs? So people who spend a lot of time preaching are automatically out of the picture as "truly religious"? "Near me with their mouths but their hearts are far from me" kind of stuff? Edited August 20, 2016 by bcuzbcuz Spelling 1
waveslider Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Five Solas said: Let's not pick on Islam, let's take an example closer to home--the Native American "Ghost Dance" religious movement that swept across numerous tribes in the late 19th century. Use Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar. And then, please put it into context as Holland would have us understand religion & its benefits for society. Holland would have us believe that God's religion, not all the other religions founded on deception, benefits society. Any religion founded on deception has Satan as the founder of it, and what do you expect from Satan? A more peaceful society? "5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity. 6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it. 7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots. 8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church. 9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity." 1 Nephi 13:5-9 "1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." Revelation 17:1-2 I know atheist don't claim religious belief, but in a sense they are religious in believing that man is smart enough to bring about some type of utopian society, but that just never seems to be the case, regardless of perceived successes in sectarian societies, which are only going to be temporary until the corruption of those people running those sectarian societies screws things up for everyone. If God doesn't set moral standards, then who does get to set them? What flawed human being gets that authority? What are the long term effects of those man made standards? How are they not setting some people up to profit from those standards while all the others bear the burden of supporting unwanted standards? How are those standards enforced upon everyone? What are the penalties for not supporting those standards, if people don't want to support them? Secularism/Socialism has ideas so good that they have to be enforced upon penalty, fines or prison, and paid for in too many taxes. That's not very moral to me. Edited August 20, 2016 by waveslider unnecessary word, and a comma 1
rockpond Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, and in the first part of the twentieth century the world was nearly destroyed and millions were killed by leaders who fought against religions (despite have religious beliefs themselves). Yes, contention over differing religious beliefs has let to many a conflict.
Five Solas Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, waveslider said: Holland would have us believe that God's religion, not all the other religions founded on deception, benefits society. Any religion founded on deception has Satan as the founder of it, and what do you expect from Satan? A more peaceful society? "5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity. 6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it... Well, they would appear to have it be a good deal more broad than that here in 2016--painting a world divided between the religious and the secular. The former would include everything from Christians to Ghost Dancers. A truly "big tent" as Republicans used to say... ;0) --Erik
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 33 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, contention over differing religious beliefs has let to many a conflict. Don't think Stalin's killing of millions had anything to do with religion, even though he himself was a priest. He didn't do it in the name of Christianity. Hitler was raised a Catholic, but I don't think he used Catholicism to justify the holocaust. I mean Nazism and Communism are such religiously devout belief systems right?
waveslider Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 30 minutes ago, Five Solas said: Well, they would appear to have it be a good deal more broad than that here in 2016--painting a world divided between the religious and the secular. The former would include everything from Christians to Ghost Dancers. A truly "big tent" as Republicans used to say... ;0) --Erik The former? Please clarify what exactly are you referring to as being the former?
Five Solas Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Don't think Stalin's killing of millions had anything to do with religion, even though he himself was a priest. He didn't do it in the name of Christianity. Hitler was raised a Catholic, but I don't think he used Catholicism to justify the holocaust. I mean Nazism and Communism are such religiously devout belief systems right? I realize we've likely crossed Godwin's law - but it's worth noting Nazism drew more than a little on occult practices (a.k.a., religion). Communism--not so much... ;0) --Erik
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 23 minutes ago, Five Solas said: I realize we've likely crossed Godwin's law - but it's worth noting Nazism drew more than a little on occult practices (a.k.a., religion). Communism--not so much... ;0) --Erik Nah...it's only Godwin's law if I start calling people Nazi's. In a discussion of historical atrocities you have to discuss Hitler and Stalin. 1
carbon dioxide Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 On 8/17/2016 at 9:06 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 What thing does most of these countries share in common? Their peace and stability comes pretty much from America. Take America out of NATO. Let America look out for itself and it will not be long before these peaceful, stable countries in Europe become unstable. Yes they can be peaceful and happy when big daddy protects them from Russia or Islamic radicals however that may not be for very long. Secularism leads to a death spiral. Populations get rich, they stop having kids, immigrants come in and take over and that is happening to Europe. Secularism is a slow motion train wreak in Europe and things will change in the not too distant future. 1
Five Solas Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, waveslider said: The former? Please clarify what exactly are you referring to as being the former? "The former" from that previous phrase was "the religious." The latter was "the secular." And no, there was no ambiguity in how I worded that sentence... ;0) --Erik Edited August 21, 2016 by Five Solas eliminating ambiguity
waveslider Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 28 minutes ago, Five Solas said: "The former" from that previous phrase was "the religious." The latter was "the secular." And no, there was no ambiguity in how I worded that sentence... ;0) --Erik Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't accusing you of ambiguity. I truly didn't know what you meant by your comment. I'm still not quite certain as to who, "they," were, although I am assuming that they were the religious, but then again I didn't ask, so forgive me if I'm wrong: 2 hours ago, Five Solas said: Well, they would appear to have it be a good deal more broad than that here in 2016--painting a world divided between the religious and the secular. The former would include everything from Christians to Ghost Dancers. A truly "big tent" as Republicans used to say... Personally, IMO, I think the division is being painted more by the secularists' side as they are the ones who keep trying to get God out of everything secular.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2016 Author Posted August 21, 2016 3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Your response is somewhat ambiguous. Just where in James do you want me to look? I assumed you had some degree of acquaintance with the Book of James. Perhaps I was wrong. I was alluding to the oft-quoted passage James 1:27. Quote Pure reliigon and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. I misremembered the phrase. It is "pure religion," not "true religion," but they are synonyms. This verse sums up the matter very well. Those who would care for and serve the poor and needy and eschew the stains and worldly wickedness of a godless society are not the ones who are guilty of committing atrocities in the name of religion. Quote You probably are aware of the how the epistle of James was regarded in low esteem by Martin Luther (since you served in a Lutheran mission). I did not serve in a Lutheran mission. I served a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the land of Sweden, which, like other European nations, has a state-sponsored Church. Theirs is Lutheran. But I didn't take any time to study it while I was there. That's not what I was called to do. And academic theories about the authorship of James are of no great moment to me. As a matter of religious faith, I accept the scriptural authority of the Book of James.
Recommended Posts