The existence of evil

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not for you.  You still have the authority to reject any interpretation they offer. 

At which point I am going against the LDS paradigm.

I have "authority" to do all sorts of things.  But that doesn't make those things congruent with the Plan of Salvation.

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Judeo-Christian Ethics are not based on "whatever you as an individual feel is right or wrong at any point in time."  Rather, good and evil are determined by God, and in the LDS paradigm, that means such determinations are made by the individual not through his personal preferences, but rather through scriptures, personal revelation, and guidance from living prophets and apostles.  

Ok. Not all subjective.  But in each case an individual's determination through scripture, personal revelation, and guidance from living prophets (particularly since we are free to decide what we want and don't want) is a subjective determination. 

That seems reductionist.  And incompatible with the LDS paradigm.  The Plan of Salvation is not predicated on each person choosing their own "subjective" path to God.  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the away, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  (John 14:6).

We can, of course, reject this tenet of the Plan of Salvation.  Or any other part of it.  But at that point we are operating outside of the Plan.  Operating within the plan resolves the "subjectivity" issue you are raising, since doing so requires us to submit to external authorities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Gods always existed, but they weren't always Gods, right? Each God has an origin story before they became a God. 

Correct.  But with the proviso of infinite regress of gods.  There is no first god, and there is no origin point of gods.  They have always existed, just as there have always been humans.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At which point I am going against the LDS paradigm.

I have "authority" to do all sorts of things.  But that doesn't make those things congruent with the Plan of Salvation.

But you agreeing with every single thing the prophets and apostles of the LDS Church have said is not necessarily congruent with God's will.  At least in theory some have spoken out of turn, and in practice we have McConkie telling us they did, including himself. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems reductionist.  And incompatible with the LDS paradigm.  The Plan of Salvation is not predicated on each person choosing their own "subjective" path to God.  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the away, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  (John 14:6).

That does not address a person's life.  Of course we all walk a subjective path in life.  Your experience and life is not mine.  it never will be. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We can, of course, reject this tenet of the Plan of Salvation.  Or any other part of it.  But at that point we are operating outside of the Plan.  Operating within the plan resolves the "subjectivity" issue you are raising, since doing so requires us to submit to external authorities.

Thanks,

-Smac

in my subjective opinion you aren't making much sense here.  Determining what is operating within and without the plan is all a subjective determination.

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're reframing this to mean "ordinary" suffering, but that's not taking into account the full spectrum of human suffering. 

I am taking into account the full spectrum of human suffering.  I never used the word "ordinary".  At no point on the spectrum does suffering become immoral/evil.  If there is a point, can you please explain what that point is and why?  If "ordinary" suffering is 0% immoral, multiplying that suffering infinitely by 0%, is still 0% immoral.  Suffering can be proof that we love, such as the suffering we experience at the tragedy, death, or injury of a loved one.  That is not evil.  In fact Christ commanded us to mourn with those who mourn".  Would Christ command us to do evil?  He also commanded us to take up our cross (a symbol of suffering). 

Think of it this way, if suffering is immoral, then Christ is the most immoral person to ever live.  Christ does not entertain evil, yet he entertained suffering.  He is refereed to as the "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief".  God Himself weeps, does that make Him unclean?  If suffering is evil, then evil exists in heaven, because the heavens weep and suffer with us.

Quote

 

Moses 7

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

37...wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

 

The heaves suffer with us.  Christ suffers with us (the full spectrum).  It is not evil to suffer.

But these things are temporary.  Suffering is the old order, but there will be a new order for those who obey:

Quote

 

Revelations 21

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

At which point I am going against the LDS paradigm.

I have "authority" to do all sorts of things.  But that doesn't make those things congruent with the Plan of Salvation.

But you agreeing with every single thing the prophets and apostles of the LDS Church have said is not necessarily congruent with God's will.  At least in theory some have spoken out of turn, and in practice we have McConkie telling us they did, including himself. 

I concede that.  But I haven't claimed to "agree with every single thing."  I speaking of the vibrancy of the entire forest, not the handful of sickly trees within it.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

That seems reductionist.  And incompatible with the LDS paradigm.  The Plan of Salvation is not predicated on each person choosing their own "subjective" path to God.  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the away, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  (John 14:6).

That does not address a person's life.  Of course we all walk a subjective path in life.  Your experience and life is not mine.  it never will be. 

My point is that the LDS paradigm is not "subjective" in the way being claimed here.  I do not feel at liberty to disregard the Law of Chastity, or the Word of Wisdom, or any other commandment from God when it "subjectively" suits me.  I subordinate my subjective preferences in favor of obedience to commandments from God.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

We can, of course, reject this tenet of the Plan of Salvation.  Or any other part of it.  But at that point we are operating outside of the Plan.  Operating within the plan resolves the "subjectivity" issue you are raising, since doing so requires us to submit to external authorities.

in my subjective opinion you aren't making much sense here.  Determining what is operating within and without the plan is all a subjective determination.

I think you are resorting to a reductio ad absurdum argument.  Dismissing the entirety of the human experience as "all a subjective determination" doesn't seem to help.  It does not diminish my argument nor advance yours (since both are "subjective").  It does not clarify anything, and instead allows for the summary dismissal of, well, everything by waving it away as "subjective determination{s}."

I nevertheless concede the point.  We are all operating "subjectively."  "For now we see through a glass, darkly."  (1 Cor.13:12).  But that's as true of "pantheism" as it is of Judeo-Christian thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I concede that.  But I haven't claimed to "agree with every single thing."  I speaking of the vibrancy of the entire forest, not the handful of sickly trees within it.

I don't know what you mean here. 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point is that the LDS paradigm is not "subjective" in the way being claimed here.  I do not feel at liberty to disregard the Law of Chastity, or the Word of Wisdom, or any other commandment from God when it "subjectively" suits me.  I subordinate my subjective preferences in favor of obedience to commandments from God.

But if an LDS person determines in his/her subjective opinion, that some part the doctrines and commands given from the Church is not of God, that person is most definitely at liberty to do what he/she determines is the good way.  You do what you want, but that doesn't take away your subjective determination in choosing to do what you want. 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you are resorting to a reductio ad absurdum argument.  Dismissing the entirety of the human experience as "all a subjective determination" doesn't seem to help.  It does not diminish my argument nor advance yours (since both are "subjective").  It does not clarify anything, and instead allows for the summary dismissal of, well, everything by waving it away as "subjective determination{s}."

I nevertheless concede the point.  We are all operating "subjectively."  "For now we see through a glass, darkly."  (1 Cor.13:12).  But that's as true of "pantheism" as it is of Judeo-Christian thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The problem of evil is not, "evil is a problem." The problem of evil is: "God is all knowing, all good and all powerful. Why doesn't he stop the evil?" Without a God that looks like that, the problem of evil doesn't exist. Essentially the problem of evil is an inconsistency between the state of the world and a theology that implies the world should actually be different. 

Bonus points for the Discworld reference though. 

It sounds like the problem of evil is that the premise of the issue supposes that an all powerful, knowing, and good God must intervene to stop evil.  Am I understanding that right?

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I concede that.  But I haven't claimed to "agree with every single thing."  I speaking of the vibrancy of the entire forest, not the handful of sickly trees within it.

I don't know what you mean here. 

Yeah, I was waxing to poetical.  You seem to be discounting the notion of prophetic guidance by pointing to errors or mistakes made by prophets.  I look at the value of prophetic guidance like a large and vibrant forest.  It is beautiful in the aggregate, and in most, but not all, of its discrete parts.  I was also suggesting that you are, proverbially speaking, looking at a handful of sickly trees (errors by the Brethren) within that otherwise vibrant forest.  I am looking at the forest, you are looking at a sampling of a few sick trees.

Quote

Quote

My point is that the LDS paradigm is not "subjective" in the way being claimed here.  I do not feel at liberty to disregard the Law of Chastity, or the Word of Wisdom, or any other commandment from God when it "subjectively" suits me.  I subordinate my subjective preferences in favor of obedience to commandments from God.

But if an LDS person determines in his/her subjective opinion, that some part the doctrines and commands given from the Church is not of God, that person is most definitely at liberty to do what he/she determines is the good way. 

Theoretically, yes.  But this is just another logical error.  I have in mind a legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law":

Quote

The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.

Yes, there is a theoretical possibility of the Brethren screwing up en mass as to some vital point of doctrine, while at the same time an individual member may have discerned the correct state of things.  But that seems . . . unlikely.  An "Extreme case."  An argument from the margins.  An overemphasis on the possible exception to the rule rather than on the amply-demonstrated rule itself.

So yes, it is perhaps somehow conceivable that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are all just totally off as to important doctrines that are also points of controversy in today's society (teachings about marriage and same-sex attraction appear to be biggies).  Not likely, no.  Just theoretically conceivable.

For me, I prefer not to focus on arguments from the margins, exceptions to the rule, theoretical possibilities over plain ol' reality (as we perceive it, anyway).  I prefer to focus on generally-applicable principles that arise from the Plan of Salvation as taught by the LDS Church.  That Plan includes the notion that God exists, that He has certain attributes, that He communicates with us, that He calls prophets and apostles, that he gives us guidance through those prophets and apostles, and also through personal revelation, and that if and when there is a contradiction between my personal preferences and clear, longstanding teachings from the Brethren, then I'd better take a good, long look at the former, because there's an appreciably better chance that my opinion is wrong as compared to the cumulative wisdom of past and present prophets and apostles.

Quote

You do what you want, but that doesn't take away your subjective determination in choosing to do what you want. 

Again, waving away points of view with claims of "subjective determination" does nothing to advance the discussion.  We are all tarred with that same brush.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2017 by smac97

[Brother Bear]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So randomly beating strangers to a pulp is "good" as long as it passes the foregoing litmus test.  Same with murder.  Theft.  Kidnapping.  Rape.  Any conceivable act can pass this "if it feels good, do it" litmus test.

Which means that the test does not seem very useful in differentiating good from evil, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

By what other means could we know good from evil? Evil is that repulsive feeling I have when I contemplate some of the things that people do to each other (murder, rape, beating to pulp, etc). Good is that beautiful feeling I have when I contemplate some other things people do for each other. When someone says something is "good," I see that as an invitation to experiment upon their word (contemplate or do) and find out for myself (see what it tastes like). 

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, I was waxing to poetical.  You seem to be discounting the notion of prophetic guidance by pointing to errors or mistakes made by prophets.  I look at the value of prophetic guidance like a large and vibrant forest.  It is beautiful in the aggregate, and in most, but not all, of its discrete parts.  I was also suggesting that you are, proverbially speaking, looking at a handful of sickly trees (errors by the Brethren) within that otherwise vibrant forest.  I am looking at the forest, you are looking at a sampling of a few sick trees.

Theoretically, yes.  But this is just another logical error.  I have in mind a legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law":

Yes, there is a theoretical possibility of the Brethren screwing up en mass as to some vital point of doctrine, while at the same time an individual member may have discerned the correct state of things.  But that seems . . . unlikely.  An "Extreme case."  An argument from the margins.  An overemphasis on the possible exception to the rule rather than on the amply-demonstrated rule itself.

So yes, it is perhaps somehow conceivable that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are all just totally off as to important doctrines that are also points of controversy in today's society (teachings about marriage and same-sex attraction appear to be biggies).  Not likely, no.  Just theoretically conceivable.

For me, I prefer not to focus on arguments from the margins, exceptions to the rule, theoretical possibilities over plain ol' reality (as we perceive it, anyway).  I prefer to focus on generally-applicable principles that arise from the Plan of Salvation as taught by the LDS Church.  That Plan includes the notion that God exists, that He has certain attributes, that He communicates with us, that He calls prophets and apostles, that he gives us guidance through those prophets and apostles, and also through personal revelation, and that if and when there is a contradiction between my personal preferences and clear, longstanding teachings from the Brethren, then I'd better take a good, long look at the former, because there's an appreciably better chance that my opinion is wrong as compared to the cumulative wisdom of past and present prophets and apostles.

Again, waving away points of view with claims of "subjective determination" does nothing to advance the discussion.  We are all tarred with that same brush.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think I got ya.  We keep talking past each other a bit, focusing our end goals on something else.  I suppose I chimed in only to point out, though, that in practice we all live a life of subjectivity.  That is, it seems to me, what living by faith means.  So I wasn't sure why subjectivity was at issue. 

[mnn727]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:14 AM, changed said:

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims.  When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.  

 

Sure there is, they can carry a gun, a taser, pepper spray, , they can learn self defense, they can choose to avoid certain situations.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Sure there is, they can carry a gun, a taser, pepper spray, , they can learn self defense, they can choose to avoid certain situations.

By "certain situations" do you mean life?  We simply cannot avoid all situations, including natural disasters, accidents, disease, heart-ache etc in life.  At some point we will be a victim of suffering. 

A young foreig international student and return missionary from China was senselessly shot and killed yesterday without warning.  The guy wanted his car.  Should we blame the victim for not being prepared? 

Edited October 31, 2017 by pogi

[changed]

26 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Sure there is, they can carry a gun, a taser, pepper spray, , they can learn self defense, they can choose to avoid certain situations.

Tell that to a little 5yo who is abused by their parents... tell that to the holocaust survivors, and refugees.  Blame the victims.

 

[changed]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am taking into account the full spectrum of human suffering.  I never used the word "ordinary".  At no point on the spectrum does suffering become immoral/evil.  If there is a point, can you please explain what that point is and why?  If "ordinary" suffering is 0% immoral, multiplying that suffering infinitely by 0%, is still 0% immoral.  Suffering can be proof that we love, such as the suffering we experience at the tragedy, death, or injury of a loved one.  That is not evil.  In fact Christ commanded us to mourn with those who mourn".  Would Christ command us to do evil?  He also commanded us to take up our cross (a symbol of suffering). 

Think of it this way, if suffering is immoral, then Christ is the most immoral person to ever live.  Christ does not entertain evil, yet he entertained suffering.  He is refereed to as the "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief".  God Himself weeps, does that make Him unclean?  If suffering is evil, then evil exists in heaven, because the heavens weep and suffer with us.

The heaves suffer with us.  Christ suffers with us (the full spectrum).  It is not evil to suffer.

But these things are temporary.  Suffering is the old order, but there will be a new order for those who obey:

 

Is suffering temporary?  If God is still suffering, if progression is eternal and we will always be fighting to progress...

[mnn727]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

By "certain situations" do you mean life?  We simply cannot avoid all situations, including natural disasters, accidents, disease, heart-ache etc in life.  At some point we will be a victim of suffering. 

A young foreig international student and return missionary from China was senselessly shot and killed yesterday without warning.  The guy wanted his car.  Should we blame the victim for not being prepared? 

DO I mean life? NO. I mean don't go to frat parties where booze is being served, stay out of bad parts of town. nothing good ever happens after midnight.

Stop putting yourself in bad situations.

[mnn727]

11 minutes ago, changed said:

Tell that to a little 5yo who is abused by their parents... tell that to the holocaust survivors, and refugees.  Blame the victims.

 

You're changing the situation from the opening post.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

By what other means could we know good from evil?

You mean "means" other than one's personal preferences?  Well, the Judeo-Christian ethic is a biggie.  And for Latter-day Saints, we also lay claim to revelatory guidance through personal revelation, and also prophets and apostles.

Quote

Evil is that repulsive feeling I have when I contemplate some of the things that people do to each other (murder, rape, beating to pulp, etc).

But what do you say when you come across an individual who feels good about the same things you think are "evil?"  

Quote

Good is that beautiful feeling I have when I contemplate some other things people do for each other.

Again, when you come across an individual who feels that adultery is "beautiful?"  Or theft?  Or sucker-punching random strangers on the streets of New York?  Is the person who enjoys doing these things justified?  Can he simply say "Hey, I think beating on people I dislike is a good thing.  It makes me feel good.  It's cathartic"?  

Quote

When someone says something is "good," I see that as an invitation to experiment upon their word (contemplate or do) and find out for myself (see what it tastes like). 

Okay.  So what "experiment" do you use?  How do you distinguish "good" from "evil?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

No need to apologize!

Okay, according to my personal pantheism, which says:

• God = the totality everything that exists
• God is not a conscious being with agency
• God does not speak or think
• Consciousness is an emergent property of discrete parts of the universe, namely in human beings, but these conscious beings have limited power/agency 

Where does this God become on the hook for the problem of evil, keeping in mind that this God is not  omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent. If this God is on the hook, does this make the universe on the hook for evil, even if you don't choose to call the universe God? 

Put it this way, why call this God if it doesn't have any property related to God. The pantheists had reasons to call the universe God based upon their conception of the universe. Why are you calling the universe God? In other words what makes your position different from standard run of the mill atheism?

If there isn't any difference, exactly what work is the word "god" doing in what you present?

Edited October 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, changed said:

Is suffering temporary?  If God is still suffering, if progression is eternal and we will always be fighting to progress...

Suffering due to the consequences of mortality will have an end.  All personal physical pain, death, trauma, mental illness, and suffering from all illness and disease will end.  I trust that we will be compensated for righteous suffering; and that all things will be measured and will be made right, fair, and balanced.  But yes, if we are to become Gods of our own creation, I suspect that we too will mourn as God mourns over the poor choices and the suffering of our children.  God's perfect knowledge of the plan of happiness makes the suffering  worth it. 

I suspect that it will be similar to being a parent now.  We know that having children will bring suffering to both us and our children.  We know that it is a dangerous world.  We know that they will experience pain, heart-ache, disease, and death (sometimes at a very young age), yet we choose to have children anyway.  We choose the risk because we know that life and love is worth it. 

Faith and hope in the plan of happiness can temper suffering and give us strength to endure.  Death loses it's sting.  Physical and emotional turmoil and pain are momentary.  Redemption coupled with a perfect justice and mercy is inevitable. All things will be made right. It is the plan of happiness.  That is the end game.   

[Brother Bear]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

You mean "means" other than one's personal preferences?  Well, the Judeo-Christian ethic is a biggie.  And for Latter-day Saints, we also lay claim to revelatory guidance through personal revelation, and also prophets and apostles.

But what do you say when you come across an individual who feels good about the same things you think are "evil?"  

Again, when you come across an individual who feels that adultery is "beautiful?"  Or theft?  Or sucker-punching random strangers on the streets of New York?  Is the person who enjoys doing these things justified?  Can he simply say "Hey, I think beating on people I dislike is a good thing.  It makes me feel good.  It's cathartic"?  

Okay.  So what "experiment" do you use?  How do you distinguish "good" from "evil?"

Thanks,

-Smac

When I say knowledge I am referring to the same type of knowledge that I have that I'm attracted to and love my wife, and that I love my children. Do you need a book on the "laws/rules" of attraction to know that you are attracted to your wife? Do you need other people to tell you that you love your children? Would them doing so add to your knowledge somehow? Would it matter if someone disagreed with you and told you that they hate your children? Would that change your knowledge? What would say to them? Would you permit them to commit harm against your family because they hated your family? Would they be justified? These questions likely sound as absurd to you as your questions in your previous post sound to me.

Regarding experimenting, scriptures, prophets, a code of ethics, etc. may invite us to consider things that we haven't (plant the seed). We can then exercise faith by considering the idea and if it's actionable, do something to test it out (nourish the seed, experiment upon the word). We then experience the effects of the idea (taste of the fruit) and obtain a knowledge similar to knowing that we love our spouse. We then use words like good, evil, love, etc in an attempt to describe our experience. 

This is what I am talking about when I describe knowing good from evil and experimenting. I'm not talking about obtaining a knowledge of some moral reality. To me that's a pointless discussion involving infinite regress and circular reasoning. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Brother Bear

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

When I say knowledge I am referring to the same type of knowledge that I have that I'm attracted to and love my wife, and that I love my children. Do you need a book on the "laws/rules" of attraction to know that you are attracted to your wife? Do you need other people to tell you that you love your children? Would them doing so add to your knowledge somehow? Would it matter if someone disagreed with you and told you that they hate your children? Would that change your knowledge? What would say to them? Would you permit them to commit harm against your family because they hated your family? Would they be justified? These questions likely sound as absurd to you as your questions in your previous post sound to me.

Regarding experimenting, scriptures, prophets, a code of ethics, etc. may invite us to consider things that we haven't (plant the seed). We can then exercise faith by considering the idea and if it's actionable, do something to test it out (nourish the seed, experiment upon the word). We then experience the effects of the idea (taste of the fruit) and obtain a knowledge similar to knowing that we love our spouse. We then use words like good, evil, love, etc in an attempt to describe our experience. 

This is what I am talking about when I describe knowing good from evil and experimenting. I'm not talking about obtaining a knowledge of some moral reality. To me that's a pointless discussion involving infinite regress and circular reasoning. 

Welcome.

I like you already. 

 

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

When I say knowledge I am referring to the same type of knowledge that I have that I'm attracted to and love my wife, and that I love my children.

I am not challenging your ability to discern "good" and "evil."  I am asking how you do it.

6 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

Do you need a book on the "laws/rules" of attraction to know that you are attracted to your wife? Do you need other people to tell you that you love your children? Would them doing so add to your knowledge somehow? Would it matter if someone disagreed with you and told you that they hate your children? Would that change your knowledge? What would say to them? Would you permit them to commit harm against your family because they hated your family? Would they be justified? These questions likely sound as absurd to you as your questions in your previous post sound to me.

Ah.  Then.  I'll avoid further discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Brother Bear]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Welcome.

I like you already. 

 

Well thank you! (This is smileymcgee; I had some login issues with my other account, not trying to be sneaky, it's all in good faith)

Edited November 1, 2017 by Brother Bear

[Gray]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, hoping to re-set our interactions.  We good?

Yes, thank you!

 

Quote

Moving on . . . Could you explain your philosophy of how "good and evil exist?"

It seems that Judeo-Christian thinking does not do this.  Rather, it posits that "good" and "evil" are defined by God, not by individual "subjective determinations."  

Morality exists the same way that laws exist - we reason together and determine laws/morals that best foster a peaceful/happy society. Morality works much the same way, although usually without state enforcement. It's subjective in the sense that human well being is a value that is subjective to human beings. On the other hand, once you start with the assumption that morality = that which promotes human well-being, we can start to come to some reasonable arguments and concrete conclusions. Meth leads to human misery and destruction, therefore it's immoral. That kind of thing.

Many Christians believe that God defines good and evil, but certainly not all. The idea that God gets to determine good and evil brings its own set of problems. For one, good becomes a tautology. Goodness is good because God is good and God says so. So really it becomes, "God is God." If God says sacrificing babies to Moloch is good, is that act transformed into a righteous act? Even if God has some kind of objective morality, we don't have direct access to it, because revelation is subjective by nature.

But in Mormon theology, God doesn't actually define good and evil - these are simply laws that God must obey, or cease to be God. Where do these laws come from then? It's not defined. Maybe they're some kind of Platonic ideal. Morality is outside of God, though, and most likely predates God's Godhood.

 

Quote

So how are these concepts defined in pantheism?  Who sets the rules?

Okay, so if God does not set the rules of morality, and and if individuals do not set the rules ("{t}hat doesn't mean anything goes"), then is it the collective?  The community?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, the community. And of course it's reinforced through nature and nurture.

But let's replace the word "morality" with "human well-being". Human well-being isn't just a matter of anything goes. There are definitely some things that generally promote human well being, and some things that promote the opposite. That goes beyond any one person's subjective opinion. Maybe that goes back to the idea of morality in Mormonism being outside of God's direct control.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Put it this way, why call this God if it doesn't have any property related to God. The pantheists had reasons to call the universe God based upon their conception of the universe. Why are you calling the universe God? In other words what makes your position different from standard run of the mill atheism?

If there isn't any difference, exactly what work is the word "god" doing in what you present?

The universe in the plain sense of that word, meets many attributes for God for me:

• The first cause
• Creator, source of life/love/being
• Source of all spiritual principles

Basically I'm pointing to that which is greatest (among the things known to exist) and defining it as God. The idea that we are all a part of God rather than separate from God I think has great spiritual value as well.

Let's turn it around, why are you calling the LDS God God? He doesn't meet the usual definitions for God either. He's an exalted human being from another world. He's limited and finite, he's not the first cause. He didn't even create us - we always existed. Most traditional Christians would say he doesn't meet the definition for God.

Ultimately, what we choose to define as God is subjective. My definition works for me. This is the space in which I can practice spirituality.

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Gray