Religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until it created it.

[canard78]

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

Quote

There is a cycle where you feel guilt & shame because of the doctrine of the church and then you feel you can't get over the guilt except with the doctrine of the church. So now the church becomes your saviour when the church actually created the problem in the first place. 

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

Quote

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
Mosiah 3:19

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

I find the Book of Mormon's teaching of the natural man and really the entire Book of Mormon as an invaluable guide through life and eternity. It points to the flawed man and then to Jesus as Redeemer. Raise from the dust, as Jeff Lindsey would say.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-1-tracks-from-the-book-of-moses/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-2-enthronement-resurrection-and-other-ancient-motifs-from-the-voice-from-the-dust/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-3-dusting-off-a-famous-chiasmus-alma-36/

[RevTestament]

36 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

Perhaps you don't understand the story of Eden and the fall?

Man was fine until the first seal, the law, and the fall. If God gives no law, there can be no sin and no fall from it. There would also be no temporal world as we are experiencing it because the fall began the seven thousand years of temporal history. Without the fall there is no need of "salvation to a problem that didn't exist." It wasn't religion which created this need. It was the law and the fall of man. Without that in the plan, there would be no need for us to be here. Remove it, and you remove any chance at progression we have.

[The Nehor]

I have known too many atheists racked with guilt to believe the problem of sin is one religion made up so they could provide a cure.

[canard78]

26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps you don't understand the story of Eden and the fall?

Man was fine until the first seal, the law, and the fall. If God gives no law, there can be no sin and no fall from it. There would also be no temporal world as we are experiencing it because the fall began the seven thousand years of temporal history. Without the fall there is no need of "salvation to a problem that didn't exist." It wasn't religion which created this need. It was the law and the fall of man. Without that in the plan, there would be no need for us to be here. Remove it, and you remove any chance at progression we have.

And where did you get the "problem" of the conditions of the fall that you need to be saved from? You got it from the same book(s) of doctrine that provide you the solution to that problem. 

I'm only using Mosiah 3:19 as an illustration. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

Quote

There is a cycle where you feel guilt & shame because of the doctrine of the church and then you feel you can't get over the guilt except with the doctrine of the church. So now the church becomes your saviour when the church actually created the problem in the first place. 

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

I think 2 Nephi 2:13 is aptly quoted here:

Quote

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

And also Alma 30:17:

Quote

And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

These verses, as well as others, speak to the existence of a general sense of "right" and "wrong" that permeates pretty much every culture, albeit to varying degrees.  I think the existence of this generalized moral code exists outside of religion (though religions reflect and refine and codify it).

I have previously taught courses on the law at a local university, including a course on legal research which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provide the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three or so examples of conduct that is, in their view, malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes varied ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts were always volunteered by students.  I then ask my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

What are your thoughts about this?  Are things like "murder" and "rape" and "theft" only deemed "wrong" because "religion" says so?

Further, are you indifferent to these things?  Does murder both you at all?  Sexual assault?  If so, why?  Are you only bothered because "religion" has indoctrinated this response into you?  If you think these things are "wrong," by what means did you arbitrate that determination?

Finally, is is possible, in your view, for a person who holds himself/herself utterly apart from any religion to nevertheless feel "guilt & shame" about his/her conduct?  By way of illustration: Utterly irreligious Steven breaks up with his girlfriend, Miranda.  A week later he goes to Miranda's apartment to see if he can patch things up.  Harsh words and recriminations are exchanged, and Steven, in a fit or rage, batters Miranda severely, then sexually assaults her.

What are your thoughts here?  Is Steven capable of feeling "shame & guilt" about his conduct?  If so, whence comes those feelings?

Should Steven feel "shame & guilt", in your view?  If so, why?

If utterly irreligious Steven does in fact feel "shame & guilt" about his conduct, how is it that "the church" is to be blamed/credited for it?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by smac97

[canard78]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have known too many atheists racked with guilt to believe the problem of sin is one religion made up so they could provide a cure.

Guilt? Or shame? If guilt, guilt for what? There's a difference between recognising the impact of choices on others and feeling a sense of responsibility (or guilt) for those choices and consequences, compared to guilt or shame for a breach of an arbitrary religious rule or shame at the inability to reach a given religions' standard of living. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

My response would be that religion didn't create the problems. 

[Calm]

It is both an assumption that religion creates problems and religion addresses problems that were already there.

Generally religious believers believe the problems already existed, so they would not see it as circular, but filling a need.

So it seems a discussion destined to simply confirm individuals' original position to me.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Guilt? Or shame? If guilt, guilt for what? There's a difference between recognising the impact of choices on others and feeling a sense of responsibility (or guilt) for those choices and consequences, compared to guilt or shame for a breach of an arbitrary religious rule or shame at the inability to reach a given religions' standard of living. 

Is there much of a difference? I have read enough Plato and other old Greek stories  to know that a society whose gods are amoral jerks can set up philosophies of right conduct with no real religious injunctions backing them. 

Humans are inherently messed up whether you attribute it to a Fall or happenstance of how we came to be. Religion can be a cure but that is not proof they made up the disease. We live in a generation that has tried to severely limit what is wrong to crimes against others and suggesting what we do to ourselves is fine and our choice. I am not convinced this generation is more psychologically adjusted.

Remonds me of Twentieth Century sexual liberation movements. We are told that culture and/or religion stifled it and if we just gave it fresh air it would sort itself out. It has not and the prescription is always more fresh air. How much does it need?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

True, without a rule, law, or commandment, there could be no shame in transgression because there could be no transgression in the first place. Where does that lead us?

I think Jacob gives a pretty good response:

Quote

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. 2 Nephi 2:13

Edit: I now see that smac beat me to it...carry on!

Edited December 12, 2016 by pogi

[Bob Crockett]

I suppose if my children were born illegitimate and didn't have any father to raise them, they might take offense if I stepped forward and made them heirs to all that I had.  

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Every semester I provide the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three or so examples of conduct that is, in their view, malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes varied ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts were always volunteered by students.  I then ask my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

What are your thoughts about this?  Are things like "murder" and "rape" and "theft" only deemed "wrong" because "religion" says so?

What's interesting is that if you asked an atheist who has studied social science and evolutionary biology why those things are malum in se, he or she would be able to go into great detail about why those things are wrong and why we intuitively know it.

I wonder how much Mormon guilt (or Catholic guilt, if you prefer) is from people stealing, murdering, or committing sexual assault? I would guess very little. More typical Mormon guilt would be for things like spending your disposable income for the month on Christmas presents for your kids rather than tithing to your church, doing homework on Sunday, having sex with your fiancee before your wedding night, or having a cup of coffee in order to get an extra jolt of energy in the morning. That list could go on and on and on. What about those things? If you grow up without religion will you feel guilty for doing homework on Sunday? Should you? 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Analytics

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

The usefulness of porn is one great example of the theme of this thread.

Conservative religion casts ANY porn in the role of a destructive villain which threatens marital relationships, is addictive, and relationship-ending.

Liberal religion can accept and promote the possibility that responsible and mutual appreciation of at least some types of non-exploitative porn which can expand, enrich, deepen, and support healthy intimacy and sexuality within committed marital relationships.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

I don’t think religion invented death, the fear of death, or guilt.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

Guilt? Or shame? If guilt, guilt for what? There's a difference between recognising the impact of choices on others and feeling a sense of responsibility (or guilt) for those choices and consequences, compared to guilt or shame for a breach of an arbitrary religious rule or shame at the inability to reach a given religions' standard of living. 

Not really. In addition to any personal sense of fear or guilt, every community defines those terms to some degree or another. And no one is immune to death.

Edited December 13, 2016 by CV75

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What's interesting is that if you asked an atheist who has studied social science and evolutionary biology why those things are malum in se, he or she would be able to go into great detail about why those things are wrong and why we intuitively know it.

I would be interested in such an explanation.  

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I wonder how much Mormon guilt (or Catholic guilt, if you prefer) is from people stealing, murdering, or committing sexual assault? I would guess very little.

Well, murder is fortunately very rare.  And "sexual assault" is clearly a violation of the Law of Chastity.  But then, so is adultery.  And fornication.  And same-sex behavior.  Lots of "guilt" for those things.  So guilt relating to sexual sin is a very, very common thing.

The question, though, is whether most people consider "adultery" and "fornication" to be malum in se or merely malum prohibitum.  I'd say that, in 2016, most people still think of the former as malum in se, but the latter is pretty much malum prohibitum.

54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

More typical Mormon guilt would be for things like spending your disposable income for the month on Christmas presents for your kids rather than tithing to your church, doing homework on Sunday, having sex with your fiancee before your wedding night, or having a cup of coffee in order to get an extra jolt of energy in the morning. That list could go on and on and on. What about those things? If you grow up without religion will you feel guilty for doing homework on Sunday? Should you? 

These things are obviously relating to religion, though.  So what's the dispute, exactly?  There isn't one.  The OP, on the other hand, seemed to impute all "shame" and "guilt" onto religion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

 

It has been my experience, especially while on my mission that guilt is very much alive outside of organized religion.

People with no religion often were complaining about their guilt.  "why can't I be happy? I am living my life the way I want to. " or some variation of this.

Seeing the change in peoples lives, for the better, has convinced me that the Gospel rescues people and lifts them up.   

If religion is causing you to feel guilty, then I believe you are doing it wrong.

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Danzo

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I would be interested in such an explanation.  

Well, murder is fortunately very rare.  And "sexual assault" is clearly a violation of the Law of Chastity.  But then, so is adultery.  And fornication.  And same-sex behavior.  Lots of "guilt" for those things.  So guilt relating to sexual sin is a very, very common thing.

The question, though, is whether most people consider "adultery" and "fornication" to be malum in se or merely malum prohibitum.  I'd say that, in 2016, most people still think of the former as malum in se, but the latter is pretty much malum prohibitum.

These things are obviously relating to religion, though.  So what's the dispute, exactly?  There isn't one.  The OP, on the other hand, seemed to impute all "shame" and "guilt" onto religion.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure if there is a dispute--that's simply the point of the OP: religion solves problems it creates. It conditions you to feel guilty about things that aren't malum in se, and then conditions you to turn to religion for forgiveness. 

With regards to the first question, murder, thievery, and sexual assault are clearly and unambiguously bad for society and thus bad for the people within it. This fact is so distinctively true that evolutionary forces have encoded these facts into our biology. For deeper discussions on this, I'd recommend the books, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Biology, by Robert Wright, and The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

This is not my answer it is that of an atheist on a page called "Atheist Guilt"

https://www.quora.com/Do-atheists-have-guilt

Quote

 

Pierre Bouché, God-fearing-fearing

Written 26 May 2015

 

I find it extremely worrying that you ask this question, it implies that you think that if you didn't think an invisible being was watching you all the time you would not regret anything you did wrong, and it's likely you think you would also commit immoral acts.  

If this is correct, if I'm not mistaken, it makes you a psychopath.

If it is not, then you're simply being extremely silly in asking the question since you already know the answer, meaning it's not a legitimate or serious question.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps you don't understand the story of Eden and the fall?

Man was fine until the first seal, the law, and the fall. If God gives no law, there can be no sin and no fall from it. There would also be no temporal world as we are experiencing it because the fall began the seven thousand years of temporal history. Without the fall there is no need of "salvation to a problem that didn't exist." It wasn't religion which created this need. It was the law and the fall of man. Without that in the plan, there would be no need for us to be here. Remove it, and you remove any chance at progression we have.

I think you know this is a circular argument, right?  Because it presumes that religion is "correct" when the assumption of the OP is that religion is NOT correct?  I am on your side but it isn't the best argument.

[mfbukowski]

Nope I made a mistake and missed part of the post.  Fergitaboutit

Edited December 13, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The usefulness of porn is one great example of the theme of this thread.

Conservative religion casts ANY porn in the role of a destructive villain which threatens marital relationships, is addictive, and relationship-ending.

Liberal religion can accept and promote the possibility that responsible and mutual appreciation of at least some types of non-exploitative porn which can expand, enrich, deepen, and support healthy intimacy and sexuality within committed marital relationships.

While objectifying your partner.

If the sex was all that good you would not need porn.  It's a poor substitute for the real thing.  It's like giving someone a picture of a lamb chop when he is hungry.  Unless of course intimacy with a real human is frightening or unsatisfying.  

I personally find the possibility of creating new life phenomenally stimulating.   That's hard to do with a picture or movie.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The usefulness of porn is one great example of the theme of this thread.

Conservative religion casts ANY porn in the role of a destructive villain which threatens marital relationships, is addictive, and relationship-ending.

Liberal religion can accept and promote the possibility that responsible and mutual appreciation of at least some types of non-exploitative porn which can expand, enrich, deepen, and support healthy intimacy and sexuality within committed marital relationships.

I fully expect porn addiction to be the next great health crisis of the western world assuming nothing catastrophic occurs health wise in the next 20-30 years. The first generation to have general access to internet pornography when young are still only in their 30s and 40s. High speed internet where you can have a new vicarious sex partner every 10 seconds for a much shorter time. It will be interesting to see what the long-term effects of this are and I do not expect it will be in a good way.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not sure if there is a dispute--that's simply the point of the OP: religion solves problems it creates. It conditions you to feel guilty about things that aren't malum in se, and then conditions you to turn to religion for forgiveness. 

With regards to the first question, murder, thievery, and sexual assault are clearly and unambiguously bad for society and thus bad for the people within it. This fact is so distinctively true that evolutionary forces have encoded these facts into our biology. For deeper discussions on this, I'd recommend the books, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Biology, by Robert Wright, and The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. 

Yet without murder, theft, or rape I have seen people with no faith dealing with crushing guilt over their moral failures. Abandoning a family, slandering someone,  ot being a good parent or child or sibling, feeling they have missed opportunities and have failed at life, etc.