Ahab Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Your question uses it as a premise. No it doesn't, but I will use it as a premise to show you the difference: bluebell said: if God knows what is best for us (and if all good things come from God, which is the lds position), then following what He says cannot cause us to reject anything good. I now say: God knows what is best for us, and since all good things come from God (in the lds position), following what He says cannot cause us to reject anything good.
bluebell Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Your question uses it as a premise. I specifically asked the question from God's point of view so that our assumptions wouldn't be a part of the premise. 1
pogi Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Your question uses it as a premise. Here is what she said: Quote The disagreement is probably coming from my point that if God knows what is best for us (and if all good things come from God, which is the lds position), then following what He says cannot cause us to reject anything good. You haven't really wanted to engage on that hypothetical. Do you disagree that God knows what is best for us? Do you disagree that all good things come from God? Do you disagree that God speaks to man? Seems like a fair premise that all Christians would readily accept. 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: My point does not presume knowledge about what God wants about another person. Yes it does actually. By rejecting the premise, you presume the opposite. You presume to know that God doesn't want all people to be baptized as Later-day Saints.
Meadowchik Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 Just now, bluebell said: I specifically asked the question from God's point of view so that our assumptions wouldn't be a part of the premise. What are inherent assumptions when one does that? And I did answer the question
Calm Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: the problem certainly is attempting to get people to accept the science. So if science says the best way to have a healthy, successful society is to put everyone with an IQ less than 100 and anyone with genetic disorders in birth control so as to maximize potential physical and mental well being of the community, you would see that as acceptable progress that people should accept? Edited August 24, 2020 by Calm
Ahab Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, Calm said: So if science says the best way to have a healthy, successful society is to put everyone with an IQ less than 100 and anyone with genetic disorders in birth control so as to maximize potential physical and mental well being of the community, you would see that as acceptable progress that people should accept? It would be "acceptable progress" only if people "accepted" it as "progress" I would not.
Meadowchik Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Here is what she said: Do you disagree that God knows what is best for us? Do you disagree that all good things come from God? Do you disagree that God speaks to man? Seems like a fair premise that all Christians would readily accept. Yes it does actually. By rejecting the premise, you presume the opposite. You presume to know that God doesn't want all people to be baptized as Later-day Saints. No, I just don't presume that God does. So when the question of being baptized in the LDS church is asked, God may will either way.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm afraid that the "one true church" narrative translates quite literally into a "one true path" approach to life. If one isn't on the one true path then they must be on the wrong path, even if there is good on that path. Like you say, if one knows the mind and will of God perfectly, then there is no problem, but when their understanding isn't perfect, or they rely on others to teach them from their imperfect understandings, then suddenly you have a "one true path" that isn't perfect and therefore may not be as true as another path. Thank you, Ado Annie: "With you, it's all er nuthin'!" Which church is "true"? Well, I think being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best thing going. If I didn't, I would be something else (or nothing else, religiously speaking: e.g., "spiritual but not religious," whatever that's supposed to mean, although if someone finds fulfillment on that path, who am I to argue? More power to 'em!) A better question than, "Is my church 'true'?" or "Is your church 'true'?" or "Is this church 'true'?" or "Is that church 'true'?" or "Is no church 'true'?" is, "Does the path that I'm/you're/he's/she's/it's/we're/they're (whatever that path happens to be) bear good fruit in the person's life? Does it fill that person's soul and make that person happy?" If it does, then, by all means, that person should continue on that path. In the broadest sense, it doesn't matter if it's the Catholic Path, Presbyterian Path, or the Methodist Path, or the Baptist Path, or the Muslim path, or the Buddhist path ... Well, what if one is an atheist? As unfathomable as it might be to me to have a consistent, coherent moral framework that doesn't have some conception of God at its center, if one believes in loving one's neighbor as oneself; in doing unto others as he would have done unto him; in giving of himself; in helping others; in making life as good as he can make it for those around him (family, friends, loved ones, acquaintances, associates, strangers) for as long as he can before, from his perspective, finally "succumbing to the void," more power to him. Now, am I saying that these paths are all the same, or that there's no difference between them? No. I'm fascinated, for example, by Islam, but there are aspects of it, when it comes to practice, that I would find utterly foreign, just as a Muslim might be baffled if I were to invite him to a service of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whatever Light one seeks and however he seeks it, he should do the best he can to nurture and to live by that light: Quote Doctrine and Covenants 50 23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. 24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day. Does Catholicism edify? Obviously, devout Catholics think it does! More power to 'em! And I would say the same with respect to any other religion, and even with respect to no religion, to the extent the non-religious person or the atheist "receiveth light." More power to 'em! No one should take it upon himself to tell a devout Catholic (or anyone else who is devout, that is, anyone who "receiveth light" from the religion to which he subscribes or from the path that he is on) that the devotee is wrong. Now, all of that having been said, I'll reiterate what I said in the beginning, that I think being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ is the best thing going, religion-wise. But I'm not here to extinguish anyone else's light: Light is Light, wherever and however it is found. So where does that leave the Church of Jesus Christ? Well, if you're fulfilled on your current path, as I said, more power to you. If you don't feel you are as fulfilled on your current path as you could be, then perhaps I do have something to share with you in which you might find even greater value. "But, Ken, don't you believe that there's only one path that'll get one 'all the way there'?" Yes. But while there may be only one path that gets one "all the way there," there are many paths that'll get one most of the way there. https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/ https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/lds-who-join-other-churches/ 1
Ahab Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Thank you, Ado Annie: "With you, it's all er nuthin'!" Which church is "true"? Well, I think being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best thing going. If I didn't, I would be something else (or nothing else, religiously speaking: e.g., "spiritual but not religious," whatever that's supposed to mean, although if someone finds fulfillment on that path, who am I to argue? More power to 'em!) A better question than, "Is my church 'true'?" or "Is your church 'true'?" or "Is this church 'true'?" or "Is that church 'true'?" or "Is no church 'true'?" is, "Does the path that I'm/you're/he's/she's/it's/we're/they're (whatever that path happens to be) bear good fruit in the person's life? Does it fill that person's soul and make that person happy?" If it does, then, by all means, that person should continue on that path. In the broadest sense, it doesn't matter if it's the Catholic Path, Presbyterian Path, or the Methodist Path, or the Baptist Path, or the Muslim path, or the Buddhist path ... Well, what if one is an atheist? As unfathomable as it might be to me to have a consistent, coherent moral framework that doesn't have some conception of God at its center, if one believes in loving one's neighbor as oneself; in doing unto others as he would have done unto him; in giving of himself; in helping others; in making life as good as he can make it for those around him (family, friends, loved ones, acquaintances, associates, strangers) for as long as he can before, from his perspective, finally "succumbing to the void," more power to him. Now, am I saying that these paths are all the same, or that there's no difference between them? No. I'm fascinated, for example, by Islam, but there are aspects of it, when it comes to practice, that I would find utterly foreign, just as a Muslim might be baffled if I were to invite him to a service of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whatever Light one seeks and however he seeks it, he should do the best he can to nurture and to live by that light: Does Catholicism edify? Obviously, devout Catholics think it does! More power to 'em! And I would say the same with respect to any other religion, and even with respect to no religion, to the extent the non-religious person or the atheist "receiveth light." More power to 'em! No one should take it upon himself to tell a devout Catholic (or anyone else who is devout, that is, anyone who "receiveth light" from the religion to which he subscribes or from the path that he is on) that the devotee is wrong. Now, all of that having been said, I'll reiterate what I said in the beginning, that I think being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ is the best thing going, religion-wise. But I'm not here to extinguish anyone else's light: Light is Light, wherever and however it is found. So where does that leave the Church of Jesus Christ? Well, if you're fulfilled on your current path, as I said, more power to you. If you don't feel you are as fulfilled on your current path as you could be, then perhaps I do have something to share with you in which you might find even greater value. "But, Ken, don't you believe that there's only one path that'll get one 'all the way there'?" Yes. But while there may be only one path that gets one "all the way there," there are many paths that'll get one most of the way there. https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/ https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/lds-who-join-other-churches/ Which is what I like about our concept of heaven. It's not just one place where everything is the same for everybody who goes to heaven. There are many degrees of glory and anyone who goes to heaven will get more than we have now. 1
pogi Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: No, I just don't presume that God does. You don't presume that God does what?
stemelbow Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 51 minutes ago, Calm said: So if science says the best way to have a healthy, successful society is to put everyone with an IQ less than 100 and anyone with genetic disorders in birth control so as to maximize potential physical and mental well being of the community, you would see that as acceptable progress that people should accept? The positive of science is we don't just arrive at a conclusion just because. To say "if science says..." then put out an unlikely scenario, seems to miss the point. Part of the beauty of science is we don't really arrive, we build on that which we have.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Thank you, Ado Annie: "With you, it's all er nuthin'!" Which church is "true"? Well, I think being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best thing going. If I didn't, I would be something else (or nothing else, religiously speaking: e.g., "spiritual but not religious," whatever that's supposed to mean, although if someone finds fulfillment on that path, who am I to argue? More power to 'em!) A better question than, "Is my church 'true'?" or "Is your church 'true'?" or "Is this church 'true'?" or "Is that church 'true'?" or "Is no church 'true'?" is, "Does the path that I'm/you're/he's/she's/it's/we're/they're (whatever that path happens to be) bear good fruit in the person's life? Does it fill that person's soul and make that person happy?" If it does, then, by all means, that person should continue on that path. In the broadest sense, it doesn't matter if it's the Catholic Path, Presbyterian Path, or the Methodist Path, or the Baptist Path, or the Muslim path, or the Buddhist path ... Well, what if one is an atheist? As unfathomable as it might be to me to have a consistent, coherent moral framework that doesn't have some conception of God at its center, if one believes in loving one's neighbor as oneself; in doing unto others as he would have done unto him; in giving of himself; in helping others; in making life as good as he can make it for those around him (family, friends, loved ones, acquaintances, associates, strangers) for as long as he can before, from his perspective, finally "succumbing to the void," more power to him. Now, am I saying that these paths are all the same, or that there's no difference between them? No. I'm fascinated, for example, by Islam, but there are aspects of it, when it comes to practice, that I would find utterly foreign, just as a Muslim might be baffled if I were to invite him to a service of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whatever Light one seeks and however he seeks it, he should do the best he can to nurture and to live by that light: Does Catholicism edify? Obviously, devout Catholics think it does! More power to 'em! And I would say the same with respect to any other religion, and even with respect to no religion, to the extent the non-religious person or the atheist "receiveth light." More power to 'em! No one should take it upon himself to tell a devout Catholic (or anyone else who is devout, that is, anyone who "receiveth light" from the religion to which he subscribes or from the path that he is on) that the devotee is wrong. Now, all of that having been said, I'll reiterate what I said in the beginning, that I think being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ is the best thing going, religion-wise. But I'm not here to extinguish anyone else's light: Light is Light, wherever and however it is found. So where does that leave the Church of Jesus Christ? Well, if you're fulfilled on your current path, as I said, more power to you. If you don't feel you are as fulfilled on your current path as you could be, then perhaps I do have something to share with you in which you might find even greater value. "But, Ken, don't you believe that there's only one path that'll get one 'all the way there'?" Yes. But while there may be only one path that gets one "all the way there," there are many paths that'll get one most of the way there. https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/ https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/lds-who-join-other-churches/ Personally, I think the question about "true" is a faulty question in general. A lot depends on which definition of "true" one is using. Is the church good? Is it better than another church, or the best church? Or is it the only good church? Is it true/good only in comparison with other churches? But we know in the church that the claim of being the "one true and living" church means that it is the only church that can lead to exaltation, even if other churches are good. So if it's the only church leading to exaltation, it's really the only responsible path to be on. That is the claim many, both in and out of the church, have a problem with. IF it really is God's one true and living church and then I suppose 98% of the population will be damned from exaltation until they come to accept that it is God's one true church. I have problems with this approach because it denies the scriptural accounts of being a part of the body of Christ and the need for all parts of the body in favor of the one true part of the body. Even if it's not the intent, when one claims the church is God's one true and living church it denigrates the value of other churches. Edited August 24, 2020 by HappyJackWagon
stemelbow Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 3 hours ago, pogi said: Physical well-being cannot be objectively measured or defined either. I challenge you to define "physical well-being" in a way that all scientists will agree with, without relying on subjective measures, such as "how do you feel?" I think many measures are already in place. What is optimal blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol? Stuff like that. 3 hours ago, pogi said: All the blood panels tests, x-rays, cat scans, heart monitors, MRI's, etc, etc, etc, will never be able to reveal how a person physically feels. Objective measures will never be able to reveal subjective physical "well-being". All tests might reveal "perfect health" according to objective measures, yet the person subjectively complains of pain at a level 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, etc., or inexplicable subjective fatigue, or any number of other subjective physical complaints. Happens all the time. How do you know what will never happen? As we progress in our understanding maybe it is we gain more ways to measure. 3 hours ago, pogi said: Please define "maximized pleasure". What does that look like objectively? How do you measure it without using subjective input? Isn't "maximized pleasure' just as subjective as the method of achieving it? Its hard to define specifically no doubt. BUt as I suggested it is precisely the goal of each human. We simply seek it. We decide based on trying to reach a maximized pleasure. 3 hours ago, pogi said: Another problem is that you are focusing too much on the individual. For objective morality to work, you have to define a universal and objective "maximized pleasure" for all of humanity. There can be no tolerance for subjective pleasures that don't match your objective definition. Good luck. Luckily I'm not the neuroscientist trying to figure this out. 3 hours ago, pogi said: No, the problem is in pretending like science can universally define and objectively measure "pleasure" without relying on the subjectivity of individuals. If you say so. But as it is, we've come along way. Jesus, for instance, never knew germs caused disease. Today it's common knowledge. Science teaches, Jesus doesn't.
Calm Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 21 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The positive of science is we don't just arrive at a conclusion just because. To say "if science says..." then put out an unlikely scenario, seems to miss the point. Part of the beauty of science is we don't really arrive, we build on that which we have. How unlikely is it for science to decide that children from more intelligent parents are likely to be more intelligent and children from healthier parents are likely to be healthier?
pogi Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I think many measures are already in place. What is optimal blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol? Stuff like that. How do you know what will never happen? As we progress in our understanding maybe it is we gain more ways to measure. Its hard to define specifically no doubt. BUt as I suggested it is precisely the goal of each human. We simply seek it. We decide based on trying to reach a maximized pleasure. Luckily I'm not the neuroscientist trying to figure this out. If you say so. But as it is, we've come along way. Jesus, for instance, never knew germs caused disease. Today it's common knowledge. Science teaches, Jesus doesn't. Ok, come talk to me when we have a universal and objective measure of well-being, as well as a universally acceptable definition and objective measure for "pleasure". You have avoided my question as to why an act of nature should be judged as moral or immoral, and why the measure of morality should be human-centric. Edited August 24, 2020 by pogi 1
Kenngo1969 Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 33 minutes ago, stemelbow said: ... But as it is, we've come along way. Jesus, for instance, never knew germs caused disease. Today it's common knowledge. Science teaches, Jesus doesn't. Yes, I'm certainly grateful for how far science has come. Were it not for that, I might not be walking at all, let alone being able to do so relatively free of pain. I would have been condemned as a thirteen-year-old to have a severely malformed, severely arthritic, barely useful hip. As grateful as I am for modern science, however, I do consider the successful outcome to be a miracle, given the paucity of alternatives presented to me by then-prevailing orthopedic wisdom. However, in response to your indictment of the Savior of the Universe that "Jesus . . . never knew germs cause[ ] disease," I ask, "And so?" Your determination to privilege scientific knowledge above (indeed, it would seem, not nearly above but to the exclusion of) all other forms of knowledge seems myopic at best. Science is really good at answering "How?" questions; answering existential, essential "Why?" questions? Not so much. 2
Ahab Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 46 minutes ago, stemelbow said: But as it is, we've come along way. Jesus, for instance, never knew germs caused disease. Today it's common knowledge. Science teaches, Jesus doesn't. There you go trying to be funny again. Or does you imagining knowing what Jesus doesn't know seem scientific to you? No, probably not. I'll just think you were trying to be funny. ha ha 1
mrmarklin Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 12 hours ago, Meadowchik said: A downside is of course possible. It's a big deal. My reply to another poster: On 8/23/2020 at 9:47 AM, mrmarklin said: I know and have as friends, many people who are good and do righteous things. Their baptism into the LDS church would not negate any of it. What’s the downside? You seem to think that there is. A downside is of course possible. It's a big deal. My reply to another poster: Quote Yes, it's a predictable human pattern, yet the point remains. LDS baptism is not just accepting one path, it also means rejecting other paths which can be righteous. This premise (Bolded) is preposterous. By definition LDS seek after all righteousness. No righteous path can nor should be rejected. In fact, that would be sin. 1
pogi Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 56 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Science teaches, Jesus doesn't. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Science teaches science. Jesus teaches salvation. 57 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Jesus, for instance, never knew germs caused disease. Neither did science at the time. That didn't stop Jesus from curing bacterial infections such as leprosy. Something that science couldn't do in the day. 3
stemelbow Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 56 minutes ago, Calm said: How unlikely is it for science to decide that children from more intelligent parents are likely to be more intelligent and children from healthier parents are likely to be healthier? What measure and scale would you like to see this put on? The likelihood of intelligence levels and health for people in certain environments, with certain biological makeups? What specifically would you like to see?
Calm Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 17 minutes ago, pogi said: Science teaches science. Jesus teaches salvation. The desire to heal all others rather than simply benefit the chosen few or those who are judged productive enough either now or in the future to compensate society’s costs for medical treatment is not something Science teaches as beneficial.
stemelbow Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 49 minutes ago, pogi said: Ok, come talk to me when we have a universal and objective measure of well-being, as well as a universally acceptable definition and objective measure for "pleasure". You have avoided my question as to why an act of nature should be judged as moral or immoral, and why the measure of morality should be human-centric. Why must you stick on an objective measure of well-being. As I suggested science is simply an effort to strive for objective. WHile we know many things about our health, and maybe as much as we'll ever know, it does not mean we know objectively every way to maintain health. We simply have what we have, and will gladly accept any findings that help our understanding more. I find that to the be same for morality, or well being. I thought you were joking about the morality of natural disasters. I don't think they fall on the scale of moral and non moral human acts.
Calm Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: What measure and scale would you like to see this put on? The likelihood of intelligence levels and health for people in certain environments, with certain biological makeups? What specifically would you like to see? Not sure what you mean. Any scale that has a cutoff standard for reproduction established by scientists would make my point.
stemelbow Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Yes, I'm certainly grateful for how far science has come. Were it not for that, I might not be walking at all, let alone being able to do so relatively free of pain. I would have been condemned as a thirteen-year-old to have a severely malformed, severely arthritic, barely useful hip. As grateful as I am for modern science, however, I do consider the successful outcome to be a miracle, given the paucity of alternatives presented to me by then-prevailing orthopedic wisdom. However, in response to your indictment of the Savior of the Universe that "Jesus . . . never knew germs cause[ ] disease," I ask, "And so?" Your determination to privilege scientific knowledge above (indeed, it would seem, not nearly above but to the exclusion of) all other forms of knowledge seems myopic at best. Science is really good at answering "How?" questions; answering existential, essential "Why?" questions? Not so much. No science is very good at answering them all, as good as we'll get anyway.
stemelbow Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 25 minutes ago, pogi said: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Science teaches science. Jesus teaches salvation. Neither did science at the time. That didn't stop Jesus from curing bacterial infections such as leprosy. Something that science couldn't do in the day. I suppose we can assume Jesus cured disease for a few people here or there. On the other hand, even if we grant the hearsay accounts in scripture as true, science still found ways to cure disease at a far higher level and grander scale. I don't mean to pit the two other than to point out, we can achieve good things, good ways of viewing things, and good practices through science.
Recommended Posts