What do we really know about God the Father?

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The question might but I'm not sure the answer necessarily does. 

Much like many reasonable questions presuppose a scientific world view to form. (Say the relation to cognition between the spirit and brain)

Ah, clear as a bell.  That helped a lot.

I am sure others will benefit from it.

Edited May 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you believe polygamy is permissible between consenting adults, or do you think your values supercede what consenting adults wish to do with their lives?

I am asking this in principle- to see if you think polygamy is inherently evil somehow or that perhaps in certain circumstances it was abused.

That makes a big difference in your argument which I think you are missing.

That is a question for another day. But at the very least, polygamy should be consensual. But that's not all, prophets should be honest and use their authority for righteousness sake, not to pressure young and older women into marrying them.

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is, based on faith and little evidence you choose to believe what Jesus allegedly said though there is a case that the person Jesus never existed, right?

I am just trying to show you that your quest for "evidence" is barking up the wrong tree when it comes to religious matters- it's not that I disagree with your principles.

Oh for goodness sakes! Obviously the evidence for Jesus is questionable.

There are important differences between believing Jesus or in Jesus and believing Joseph or in Joseph. I don't see them equivalent at all, given multiple if not all common epistemological techniques and my own in addition to those.

And as I also said, earlier to another poster, there is a fundamental difference between faith when knowledge is unavailable and faith despite available knowledge.

 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That is a question for another day. But at the very least, polygamy should be consensual. But that's not all, prophets should be honest and use their authority for righteousness sake, not to pressure young and older women into marrying them.

Again you are confusing the two issues.  No one is suggesting that is a good thing to do nor is it knowable if that "really happened" despite quotations.

There is no such thing as an objective (as in impartial) statement by a human being. Psychologists will tell you that we often do not even "know" what is "really" motivating ourselves much less what motivated someone else.

Edited May 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Oh for goodness sakes! Obviously the evidence for Jesus is questionable.

There are important differences between believing Jesus or in Jesus and believing Joseph or in Joseph. I don't see them equivalent at all, given multiple if not all common epistemological techniques and my own in addition to those.

And as I also said, earlier to another poster, there is a fundamental difference between faith when knowledge is unavailable and faith despite available knowledge.

 

And repeating the same error doesn't make it right, in both cases cited here. 

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Again you are confusing the two issues.  No one is suggesting that is a good thing to do nor is it knowable if that "really happened" despite quotations.

There is no such thing as an objective (as in impartial) statement by a human being.

Sorry, what is or isn't knowable despite quotations?

Can you please dispense with the "no objectivity" contention? The absence of complete objectivity is a given. There is however, a hiararchy of more objective and less objective.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And repeating the same error doesn't make it right, in both cases cited here. 

You saying I made an error doesn't mean I erred. Back it up please, rather than continuing to claim I'm wrong or confused, or whatever.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah, clear as a bell.  That helped a lot.

I am sure others will benefit from it.

Can't tell whether you were being sarcastic or not. (-:  

[DemonsAway]

On 4/30/2017 at 8:39 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Everyone does seem to want to make God in their own image.

Well I did always like Morgan Freeman as God.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Can't tell whether you were being sarcastic or not. (-:  

Well yes, I cannot tell a lie.

It was sarcasm.  I don't have a clue what you meant. 

[DemonsAway]

On 5/6/2017 at 2:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

That IS reality.

How did you decide who your spouse should be?  Maybe it involved some personal desire?  What school to attend?  Where to live?  What is important to you and gives your life meaning?  Was all that experimental science?

Were you aware that science is irrelevant to spirituality?  That scripture is not science?  That should be fairly obvious with a 6 day creation but I guess some have not gotten the memo.

You just got it.

Even atheists have religions.  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

Once you understand the true function of "religion" in your life as a personal choice of what makes your life meaningful, all those arguments go away.

A testimony based on your "gut" and a belief in God is just as valid as picking a spouse or occupation based on your "gut".  Your world is what you create- it's not out there to be found.

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think anyone chooses a wife or where to live based on a “gut” instinct or desire, at least I'd hope not.

I wasn't comparing science with spirituality or scripture. My main point was answering what the OP asked. Kind of pointing out something that I think religious people should stay away from, and that's using the language of “I know”. If the OP was: “What does this Holy Book tell us about God?” or “What does our faith tell us about God?” It would be more appropriate and more respectable. I've never understood why it's respected and encouraged to say "I know" about things that no human being could be certain about. It's just as easy, and it's more accurate and honest to say I believe. If anything, I think it's manipulative. If an atheist came in saying, “I know there is no God”, most of you would probably think they sounded ridiculous, but it sounds just as ridiculous when a believer makes the same type of claims. Of course, this is my opinion, but it's an honest opinion and I do think there's a lot of truth to it.

As far as the article goes I would say it seems to be based on what you want to define religion as. At least as far as saying atheists have religion. But it is pointed out that the idea of a creator or supernatural being pushing the buttons is more associated with religion and I think most atheists take it that way. I would say atheists who feel a “oneness with the universe” is something more associated with spirituality. I would define religion as the organization or the belief system; the Mormon Church, the LDS faith, the Catholic faith, etc. I think that's how the term is generally used and what is meant by it. Spirituality is a little more broad and doesn't necessarily have to involve a creator.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think anyone chooses a wife or where to live based on a “gut” instinct or desire, at least I'd hope not.

I wasn't comparing science with spirituality or scripture. My main point was answering what the OP asked. Kind of pointing out something that I think religious people should stay away from, and that's using the language of “I know”. If the OP was: “What does this Holy Book tell us about God?” or “What does our faith tell us about God?” It would be more appropriate and more respectable. I've never understood why it's respected and encouraged to say "I know" about things that no human being could be certain about. It's just as easy, and it's more accurate and honest to say I believe. If anything, I think it's manipulative. If an atheist came in saying, “I know there is no God”, most of you would probably think they sounded ridiculous, but it sounds just as ridiculous when a believer makes the same type of claims. Of course, this is my opinion, but it's an honest opinion and I do think there's a lot of truth to it.

As far as the article goes I would say it seems to be based on what you want to define religion as. At least as far as saying atheists have religion. But it is pointed out that the idea of a creator or supernatural being pushing the buttons is more associated with religion and I think most atheists take it that way. I would say atheists who feel a “oneness with the universe” is something more associated with spirituality. I would define religion as the organization or the belief system; the Mormon Church, the LDS faith, the Catholic faith, etc. I think that's how the term is generally used and what is meant by it. Spirituality is a little more broad and doesn't necessarily have to involve a creator.

I am as certain that I have had spiritual experiences as I am that I am writing this.

Do you doubt you are reading it?

You can't say you know you are reading it?

Edited May 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[DemonsAway]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am as certain that I have had spiritual experiences as I am that I am writing this.

Well you can say I know I had a spiritual experience, there's nothing wrong with that statement. But to go on to say that therefore I know God exists would be inaccurate, IMO. To say I believe God exists because of my experience would be more accurate. As you pointed out with the article you referenced, atheists have spiritual experiences, non-believers have them, people learn to meditate and have deep spiritual experiences but that tells us nothing of the truth of God's existence. But IMO, you're still not in a position to say I know God exists and "believe" would be the honest thing to say.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you doubt you are reading it?

You can't say you know you are reading it?

I'm not trying to sound rude when I say this, but I sincerely don't understand and can only guess the point you're trying to make here. I think the fact that I'm responding tells you I know I'm reading this. But I'm not implying God exists because I know I'm reading this. That's the difference.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Well you can say I know I had a spiritual experience, there's nothing wrong with that statement. But to go on to say that therefore I know God exists would be inaccurate, IMO. To say I believe God exists because of my experience would be more accurate. As you pointed out with the article you referenced, atheists have spiritual experiences, non-believers have them, people learn to meditate and have deep spiritual experiences but that tells us nothing of the truth of God's existence. But IMO, you're still not in a position to say I know God exists and "believe" would be the honest thing to say.

I'm not trying to sound rude when I say this, but I sincerely don't understand and can only guess the point you're trying to make here. I think the fact that I'm responding tells you I know I'm reading this. But I'm not implying God exists because I know I'm reading this. That's the difference.

I never said "God exists"- I am not even sure what "exists" means.  Do unicorns or superman exist because they are in stories?  We know superman's whole biography and know a lot about unicorns and yet they are said to not "exist".

It becomes a distinction without a difference.

I don't care- existence is a grammatical concept that really does not have much relevance in real life.  Do species which have not yet be discovered "exist" because they have not been categorized?

The question itself is meaningless as is the word.  It is a useless question to debate

I said I "believe" in God.  That is very different.  God is a very real force in my life from minute to minute.

Your opinion if that makes him exist or not is irrelevant to my experiences.

You have to break free from Cartesain ideas

Edited May 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said "God exists"- I am not even sure what "exists" means.  Do unicorns or superman exist because they are in stories?  We know superman's whole biography and know a lot about unicorns and yet they are said to not "exist".

It becomes a distinction without a difference.

I don't care- existence is a grammatical concept that really does not have much relevance in real life.  Do species which have not yet be discovered "exist" because they have not been categorized?

The question itself is meaningless as is the word.  It is a useless question to debate

I said I "believe" in God.  That is very different.  God is a very real force in my life from minute to minute.

Your opinion if that makes him exist or not is irrelevant to my experiences.

You have to break free from Cartesain ideas

I see. To you, the existence of God is irrelevant to your belief.  It sounds to me that that irrelevance makes it easier for you to believe.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Well you can say I know I had a spiritual experience, there's nothing wrong with that statement. But to go on to say that therefore I know God exists would be inaccurate, IMO. To say I believe God exists because of my experience would be more accurate. As you pointed out with the article you referenced, atheists have spiritual experiences, non-believers have them, people learn to meditate and have deep spiritual experiences but that tells us nothing of the truth of God's existence. But IMO, you're still not in a position to say I know God exists and "believe" would be the honest thing to say.

I'm not trying to sound rude when I say this, but I sincerely don't understand and can only guess the point you're trying to make here. I think the fact that I'm responding tells you I know I'm reading this. But I'm not implying God exists because I know I'm reading this. That's the difference.

Thanks for your replies. I wanted to upvote you two different times but this will have to suffice.

I really respect the distinction between "I believe" and "I know." I think that when spoken in absolute terns, the former is more accurate, and imo accuracy and honesty in the process engenders more clarity and is more edifying.

Thanks again!

[DemonsAway]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said "God exists"- I am not even sure what "exists" means.  Do unicorns or superman exist because they are in stories?  We know superman's whole biography and know a lot about unicorns and yet they are said to not "exist".

It becomes a distinction without a difference.

I don't care- existence is a grammatical concept that really does not have much relevance in real life.  Do species which have not yet be discovered "exist" because they have not been categorized?

The question itself is meaningless as is the word.  It is a useless question to debate

I said I "believe" in God.  That is very different.  God is a very real force in my life from minute to minute.

Your opinion if that makes him exist or not is irrelevant to my experiences.

You have to break free from Cartesain ideas

I wasn't meaning to single you out and suggest you said, "I know". I had to look at what I wrote again to understand your response. I see how it probably looks to you and I apologize for not being more clear. What I was debating was the "I know" language used by religious people. If a Muslim said, "I know Islam is true", well really no they don't. They might have strong belief and extreme faith that it's true but it would be wrong to say "I know". That's really all I'm saying. But you do kind of do the same thing in your response. 

I "believe" in God. That is fine to say.  

God is a very real force in my life from minute to minute. This is where it would be more honest to say that I believe God is a real force in my life because you'd have to know God exists to say he's a real force in my life. It's not about grammatical correctness, it's about being honest about what you know and what you don't. Like with your species example, if they haven't been discovered we don't know they exist and you wouldn't say, I know that they do exist. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. 

Like I said, this is my opinion, you don't have to agree.

[DemonsAway]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks for your replies. I wanted to upvote you two different times but this will have to suffice.

I really respect the distinction between "I believe" and "I know." I think that when spoken in absolute terns, the former is more accurate, and imo accuracy and honesty in the process engenders more clarity and is more edifying.

Thanks again!

Exactly, well said, accuracy and honesty. I think one key to why atheism/skepticism is growing so quickly because they have that honesty factor about it. Speaking as a non-believer, while I may not agree with a religious viewpoint, I have a lot more respect for the believer who's honest about what they know and what they don't. Where it's fact and where it's belief. IMO, I think any religious person would be much better off just by mere honesty and not claiming to know things they don't. You seem to understand what I'm saying and where I'm coming from and I appreciate that.

Thank you for the kind words. It was a nice start to my day.

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes, I cannot tell a lie.

It was sarcasm.  I don't have a clue what you meant. 

LOL. All I meant is that often questions can only be asked whether the theoretic scaffolding to think of the question is in place. So I couldn't ask about orbital mechanics of the planets before mathematical physics and before the heliocentric model of the universe. So all I was saying is that debate about the substance of God (which is alien to the Bible) presupposes the theoretic scaffolding to even ask the question. That requires the notions of Plato and then the greek philosophers of materialism. Given the paucity of our knowledge of pre-exilic Jews I don't want to say the question never came up for them. However it seems fair to say that Plato was a large basis for how the question was discussed even by materialists like the Stoics.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Exactly, well said, accuracy and honesty. I think one key to why atheism/skepticism is growing so quickly because they have that honesty factor about it.

While Mormons definitely emphasize knowledge, I think we're very much a minority in Christianity on that point. Most more traditional Christians I speak with see it as a matter of faith. That is they'd not say they have evidence for knowing God exists.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

LOL. All I meant is that often questions can only be asked whether the theoretic scaffolding to think of the question is in place. So I couldn't ask about orbital mechanics of the planets before mathematical physics and before the heliocentric model of the universe. So all I was saying is that debate about the substance of God (which is alien to the Bible) presupposes the theoretic scaffolding to even ask the question. That requires the notions of Plato and then the greek philosophers of materialism. Given the paucity of our knowledge of pre-exilic Jews I don't want to say the question never came up for them. However it seems fair to say that Plato was a large basis for how the question was discussed even by materialists like the Stoics.

Yep, agreed.

And I like your constructivist analogy.

Edited May 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you believe polygamy is permissible between consenting adults, or do you think your values supercede what consenting adults wish to do with their lives?

I am asking this in principle- to see if you think polygamy is inherently evil somehow or that perhaps in certain circumstances it was abused.

That makes a big difference in your argument which I think you are missing.

I'll be the first to admit it makes me very uneasy. That said, I think we should probably distinguish between what's permissible and what's good. There's lots of things that I think ought be permitted that are bad. For instance I think sexual promiscuity is horrible and damaging yet I typically think that so long as everyone involved consents and is able to consent that it should be permitted. Even though I think the contemporary practice of polygamy as a practical matter in Utah hurts people most of the time, that the state shouldn't be involved in trying to make it illegal. (Dealing with young children of course is a completely different matter)

This makes dealing with early Mormon polygamy difficult since I tend to think intrinsically it's just not something most people could live in a healthy way. That is I think the practice was damaging to members. Yet I also think it was required by God in general (even if not in all the details of implementation).

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Exactly, well said, accuracy and honesty. I think one key to why atheism/skepticism is growing so quickly because they have that honesty factor about it. Speaking as a non-believer, while I may not agree with a religious viewpoint, I have a lot more respect for the believer who's honest about what they know and what they don't. Where it's fact and where it's belief. IMO, I think any religious person would be much better off just by mere honesty and not claiming to know things they don't. You seem to understand what I'm saying and where I'm coming from and I appreciate that.

Thank you for the kind words. It was a nice start to my day.

You're welcome.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll be the first to admit it makes me very uneasy. That said, I think we should probably distinguish between what's permissible and what's good. There's lots of things that I think ought be permitted that are bad. For instance I think sexual promiscuity is horrible and damaging yet I typically think that so long as everyone involved consents and is able to consent that it should be permitted. Even though I think the contemporary practice of polygamy as a practical matter in Utah hurts people most of the time, that the state shouldn't be involved in trying to make it illegal. (Dealing with young children of course is a completely different matter)

This makes dealing with early Mormon polygamy difficult since I tend to think intrinsically it's just not something most people could live in a healthy way. That is I think the practice was damaging to members. Yet I also think it was required by God in general (even if not in all the details of implementation).

Well I lean toward libertarianism generally, regarding laws but of course my belief in "family values" is primary for my personal lifestyle and morality so we pretty much agree on this one of course as church members.

I personally accept at least partially, the Didache as scripture, which speaks of the "way of life" and the "way of death" and find that that is a great pragmatic first century discourse that affirms Alma 32, in my opinion.  There are some comments in the Didache concerning baptism with which I do not necessarily agree.

But I think the idea of the "way of life" is an excellent model for morality which can also be seen as compatible with a social evolution of morality for those who are secularly minded.

When society is structured on principles that promote peace and happiness within the family, all society benefits- that which detracts from these principles and breaks down the family is always to the detriment of society.

I think in a true Zion society polygamy might be able to work in righteousness but short of that- look out.  I think we are just not ready for it socially.  Also we have the problem of presentism in seeing the true nature of male-female relationships mixed with political correctness so that these topics are very controversial in these times to the point of being not even being able to be discussed rationally- so I keep away from the subject.  Political correctness is a great evil in my opinion.  But this is not the place to discuss that I suppose.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are some comments in the Didache concerning baptism with which I do not necessarily agree.

As an aside, I think those parts of the Didiche are more about the practical problems of baptism in a desert where travel is difficult. They're more akin to why sometimes the sacrament was administered with potatoes in WWII. My guess is that the Catholic tradition of sprinkling arose because sprinkling had been allowed in some circumstances when water was rare and precious. People then wanted to keep doing it even when rivers or wells were available. I tend to think the Didiche is more reflecting that practical limit.

Quote

When society is structured on principles that promote peace and happiness within the family, all society benefits- that which detracts from these principles and breaks down the family is always to the detriment of society.

If I am reading you right, I think we probably should distinguish between social norms and actual rules with punishments. It's a pretty strong social norm in the US that adultery or polygamy is wrong. Yet clearly people do it. My personal feeling is that these sorts of social norms are much more important than the actual explicit rules of a government. It's why I think Bush's attempts at government in Afghanistan and Iraq went so horribly astray.

Quote

I think in a true Zion society polygamy might be able to work in righteousness but short of that- look out.  I think we are just not ready for it socially.

Yup. Which is also why I make a big difference between polygamy in the next life versus here. As I've often said here I think once you allow for relationships after death, the spectre of polygamy quickly arises. I suspect polyandry does as well even though that never happened in the church in a straightforward way. (Joseph's polyandry is complex for a variety of reasons) It just seems wrong to say a widower who remarries has to pick just one spouse if they loved both people equally.

Quote

 Also we have the problem of presentism in seeing the true nature of male-female relationships mixed with political correctness so that these topics are very controversial in these times to the point of being not even being able to be discussed rationally- so I keep away from the subject.

Yeah, I agree completely. Polygamy led to lots of problems and there are very good reasons why many, especially feminists, attack the practice.