Inclusivity

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Jesus clearly said he never knew them. 

"I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me."

He is clearly playing off of this parable of the good shepherd (or perhaps we should take this literally too, that we are sheep), it is not literal.  He is the creator for crying out loud, he knows us all intellectually.  He loves us all.  This parable suggests that if we don't reciprocate and follow his voice, then we will not be part of his fold.  

“Whoever loves God is known by God”

Should we take this literally too?  God doesn't literally know the creation of his own hands?  

Forget the passages in the parable about the good shepherd dropping everything to go after the one lost sheep.  Of course, your interpretation MUCH better fits the character of Christ in this parable.  

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

He could have meant something other than he said.  People make mistakes all the time.  I suppose that means God does too.  But saying he meant something else and pretending he didn't say what he said, is just guesswork.  Be my guess in reading anything you want into the passages to make it suit your agenda or desires or beliefs.  Fine by me.

Christ spoke in parables all the time.  Those aren't mistakes.  Esoteric knowledge.  "He who has ears to hear..."  His sheep know his voice.  

Don't pretend like you are not taking one interpretive stance (literal) of this passage which suits your agenda or desires or beliefs.  Come on stem.  

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I will add, I would add your simplistic dichotomous view of humanity is kind of silly if you ask me.  I can't help your view.  I find it a sad one.  

I have already told you that my views of humanity are not simplistic or dichotomous in the least.  But you will refuse to hear my voice too.  Whatever.  Plug your ears and imagine whatever you want about me.

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

"I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me."

He is clearly playing off of this parable of the good shepherd (or perhaps we should take this literally too, that we are sheep), it is not literal.  He is the creator for crying out loud, he knows us all intellectually.  He loves us all.  This parable suggests that if we don't reciprocate and follow his voice, then we will not be part of his fold. 

“Whoever loves God is known by God”

Should we take this literally too?  God doesn't literally know the creation of his own hands?  

Forget the passages in the parable about the good shepherd dropping everything to go after the one lost sheep.  Of course, your interpretation MUCH better fits the character of Christ in this parable.  

So you are saying he means he never really considered them as part of his flock?  What does never really knowing them mean in consideration of this different parable?  Do you think he means "well you were a sheep but I didn't really ever see or recognize you as one of my flock anyway."  Or something?  Also, since you mentioned the parable of the lost sheep, are you saying, then, that he does go after those who he never knew or never considered part of his flock?  

WHat an interesting interweaving attempt to connect the various parables.  

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Christ spoke in parables all the time.  Those aren't mistakes.  Esoteric knowledge.  "He who has ears to hear..."  His sheep know his voice.  

Don't pretend like you are not taking one interpretive stance (literal) of this passage which suits your agenda or desires or beliefs.  Come on stem.  

What in this passage tells you he is just using a parable?  What is the parable?  I don't see a sheep parable here.  Or are you saying "Jesus spoke in parables all the time, literally.  So that must mean even when he clearly was not speaking in parables, he actually was"?  

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have already told you that my views of humanity are not simplistic or dichotomous in the least. 

I heard ya.  But the problem is it comes off as that to me.  So, it appears we have a genuine disagreement on what is simplistic and dichotomous.  I mean no offense by disagreeing with you.  

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

But you will refuse to hear my voice too.  Whatever.  Plug your ears and imagine whatever you want about me.

 

I mean no offense.  I"m just voicing my ideas.  

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The traditional Latin mass really calls to you, doesn’t it? 😊 To me, too. It is Catholic, unblemished by Protestantism. 

Oh heck yeah!

It draws me into a magic mystical space, early morning daily mass in grammar school, on a dark winter morning in a huge hall with nuns dressed in black, and only the altar strongly illuminated, with chanting in an ancient but somehow familiar language.   

And then later in my life, with me in my red cassock and white surplice, lighting the candles,  ringing the bells or moving "The Book" (missal), the annointing of fingers with precious cruets of water and wine, poured into a golden chalice, saying the Confiteor in Latin and all the responses, the breast beating mea culpas, the finale "Hoc Est Enim...."

And then the chanting if you were lucky, OH! the chanting!

If we could leave it there and not discuss doctrine, if we could tweak the man-made (on both sides) "descriptions" of how God works, if we could all know that these descriptions cannot possibly have anything to do with the "reality" of God since they come pre-polluted by human language- through a glass darkly, (repeating- on BOTH sides)  THEN we could get somewhere.

I recall my mother's death where a young priest fresh from the mystic land of India and perhaps not yet indoctrinated into US Pilgrim Culture,  allowed me, as a "Mormon Bishop" perhaps as a gesture for ecumenism, perhaps because our chapel was literally a stone's throw from his church, right around the corner- to the point that if we both let out at the same time, there would be a traffic jam- - to discuss OUR LDS plan of salvation in the middle of the mass of her funeral, standing behind the communion rail in the sanctuary,  and I am sure he had consequences for doing that.   To preach LDS doctrine (as generically as I could manage making it, mentioning only the things upon which we agreed, and nothing about which there might be disagreement, and fully using Catholic terminology instead of words like "Heavenly Father") with respect, was clearly a highlight of my life, and I will never forget that gracious gesture of unity and respect

In our discussion in planning the funeral, beforehand, he asked if we were "Christian", and of course I affirmed that.

He waved his hand and said "Well it's all the same then anyway, isn't it?" and of course I affirmed that it was- because after we cut out the words and stick to the spirit, after all, it IS.

But I am a guy into philosophy and words can either confuse things or clarify them, and to me, in our discussions about words, I like those on my side of the divide better.   

Edited October 3, 2020 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So you are saying he means he never really considered them as part of his flock? 

Bingo!  "my sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me: And I give them eternal life (John 10:27)".  He is saying there are many "Christians" who never really heeded his voice and chose to serve mammon instead. 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What does never really knowing them mean in consideration of this different parable? 

It means that "workers of iniquity" who hide behind facades of external ordinances, and acts, and words, are spiritually bankrupt.  One can't sneak into the flock wearing sheep's clothing (external superficiality).  The Lord requires the heart.  His flock heeds his voice.  These frauds which he is calling out, never did. 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Also, since you mentioned the parable of the lost sheep, are you saying, then, that he does go after those who he never knew or never considered part of his flock?  

You were a missionary weren't you?  You understand that the work will not be done until it has been "sounded in every ear".  Of course he goes after those he never considered part of his flock. 

"This is my work and my glory..."

Christ gave compassion to the adulterer, he asked God to forgive those who took his own life, he died for the sinner, he revealed himself as the living water to the Samaritan gentile woman at the well.  Many Samaritans were converted after that.  He invites all to come and drink freely.  Those who heed his voice are his sheep.  But lets ignore all that, I guess. 

Read the scriptures in context.  He invites all to come. 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 What in this passage tells you he is just using a parable? 

 "my sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me: And I give them eternal life (John 10:27)". 

It is a direct parallel.  Distinguishing who he knows and who he doesn't.  Those who he knows enter into eternal life. 

Christ often spoke dichotomously, for effect, but he also expounded further upon his words (which is why you need to take thing in context of all his teachings.)  Whatever you think of Jesus' words, you have no right to tell me how I perceive them - telling me my beliefs are "silly" and "sad".  Again, believe whatever you want, just don't pretend like you have me pegged.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I heard ya.  But the problem is it comes off as that to me.  So, it appears we have a genuine disagreement on what is simplistic and dichotomous.  I mean no offense by disagreeing with you.  

I don't think we have a disagreement on what is simplistic and dichotomous.  We have a disagreement on what I believe and how I perceive things.  And quite frankly, you can't tell me how I perceive things!  It is my perception, not yours. My opinion is the only valid one when it comes to my perception.   You are simply refusing to acknowledge my position in good faith dialogue, when in fact, you know better.  You know for a fact that there is nothing dichotomous about the plan of salvation.  You know that our beliefs about it working on an individual level.  You know that we teach that the glory of resurrected people will be as varied as the stars in heaven.  What is dichotomous about 4 kingdoms (including the kingdom of Satan) with varied degrees within each kingdom?  Why are you attempting to paint me in a way that you know is untrue about me. You are not that far gone are you?  You still remember some of what we believe, right?  Back when you were a believer, would you have accepted someone's accusation that your views are "dichotomous"?  No.  And you would have been right.  Perhaps you are more enlightened now.  We are actually dichotomous, despite the plan of salvation. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

I"m not saying because God said vengeance is his, suggesting no one else should be practicing it, that it means no one else will be vengeful.  I'm simply pointing out God is claiming ownership of the emotion.  We should shed ourselves of it, according to some of scripture (Granted many teachings are contradicted by other scripture...and this is one).  My only concern here is, what in the world does God think he should be vengeful about?  Seems like a deleterious emotion for him to embrace.  

I don't really get this point.  In my mind when scripture speaking for God says "I am vengeance" he/it is suggesting that in the end he'll sentence people to lesser stations of eternity to get back at them.  If you're suggesting as believers of old, and of course some today suggest, that GOd is practicing vengeance by sending natural disasters or disease, then I'd simply say..okay.  God is even more petty and silly than I would say he is, which he is both anyway.  

He's the one claiming ownership of that emotion.    Are you saying he's not vengeful?  It feels you are in one sense saying he is vengeful or can be, but in another sense its silly to say he is vengeful.  I agree with the latter if that's what you're saying.  Of course if that's what you're saying, then you, like me, find scriptural descriptions of him to be nonsense and absurd.  

Yes.  That is a much more palatable position to take--all of God's declarations in scripture aren't really him.  Its just some people's words put into His mouth.  But of course if that is so, where do we stop?  Scriptures can easily be declared as useless on such thinking.  As it is, and I think it's true, people read whatever they want into scripture, because well...God can't possibly be that stupid.  

Well for starters I don't know that there's a God at all.  To think He exists seems absurd on the face of it, particularly as he's described in scripture or by people generally.  On him, if he is, being vengeful?  I think it's a deleterious notion.  What could he possibly be vengeful about?  I mean to suggest if religion really has merit and scripture means anything, then God is vengeful.  But such a god is a tyrant.  

Underlining is mine.

Perhaps the same way that "vengeance" is the Lord's.

It doesn't mean that I "possess" that which is underlined.  It doesn't mean that I agree with it.  It doesn't mean that I claim "ownership" of it.  It doesn't mean that what is underlined is an "emotion" that I somehow "possess" 

But I pretty much agree with what YOU SAID in those underlined phrases.  But scriptures are not therefore "useless".   They are inspired words, in the same way a song or a poem can be "inspired" and instill in us strong and sacred emotions.  Good advice is good advice whether it comes from Tolkien or Shakespeare, Gautama Buddha, or Joseph Smith.

Does God "exist"?

To me that's like asking if "red" exists.   Red is an experience you cannot describe to someone who has not ever experienced it.  It does not exist "in the world"- it is according to science which is also linguistic descriptions of men- the effects of certain wavelengths of light on the tissues of the retina and then formulated by the human brain into an experience we call "red".

If you cannot experience, in the hours of your deepest thoughts, desires, prayers and yearnings, that there is an Intelligence to whom you are speaking and who answers, then I cannot say if He is "real" for you, if He is not "real" in your life.

Does He exist as your deepest unconscious idea of Yourself?   Are you yourself the person who puts thoughts and feelings into you?

Artists say things like "it just came to me".   What does that mean?   Atheists like Hitchens speaks freely about an internal "voice" which tells him what is right and wrong.   Do you feel that?   How do you know that it is wrong to steal money from someone else?  How do you know that it is wrong to beat a little child for no reason?  Why do we desire love and peace instead of war?

Any description we give in language of these feelings/ideas/terms will always point to a feeling/person/emotion that we see as a "real" force in our lives, and for me, THAT is God- the experience of that Voice IS what I call God.

There IS "someone" out there, that is what I experience, and that voice out there is what I call God.   Again, like the color red, if you have not known what red is, it cannot be verbalized.   And God cannot be linguistically described either.   Scriptures and philosophers have tried with various kinds of success AND failure.

So the bottom line is that in the final analysis, I think that we pretty much agree.

I think any appearance of disagreement we have is semantic confusion and an inability to communicate effectively between us

I see the "Plan of Salvation" as the BEST paradigm/theory/myth/way of seeing that humans have come up with to describe the Big Picture, but my advice is NOT to get hung up on semantics worrying about "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and taking it apart in 49 different ways and imagining meanings while others do the same, and get all confused over words, and ending up believing that "there is no God" simply because all the words you learned as a child don't always fit together in your adult intellect.

You wouldn't be spending so much time here if you were genuinely NOT trying to figure this all out, I know.   Yes there is always the computer- game tendency to want to come here and stir things up for fun and do a little bashing to stir the ego and pick up some points-  or at least I have that tendency I know.

But don't take it all seriously.

We live in a fog about these matters and all we have is that Voice to guide us.-   Again it is "through a glass darkly"- meaning a mirror- we are not looking at what is "out there" we are looking into ourselves in a mirror as the ancients had them- a brass sheet hammered into smoothness as nearly as possible and tinged in the colors of brass- that reddish/ yellow glow, that does not reflect reality, but our rough and tumble mirror image of it.

And remember it is a MIRROR we see- we look out at God and end up seeing a distorted image of ourselves!   We postulate he is a "Father" which immediately suggests that he is OUR FATHER that we grew up with.  We see him as a human because we are humans.   Even racially, we are drawn to images of say, Jesus who look like us

I won't go into it, but even in the temple, the veil is a mirror.  When we get sealed, mirrors surround us.  Adam and Eve are mirror images of Everyhuman just stumbling along trying to figure it out- falling and triumphing, taking steps forward and backward, waiting for revelation from the VOICE that is after all inside themselves the whole time!

Did we invent God or did God invent us?   The answer is "YES"!

God IS us and we are gods, seeing Him through our mirrors, darkly.

The more we learn about science, the more we learn about how HUMANS perceive the world and put it into words.   It is not about what is "out there" but how we PERCEIVE "what is out there"

So my advice is not to get hung up on the words of men- and in the final analysis- all we HAVE are the words of men.   Even if God appeared to us directly, all we would have is the word of another being like us!- that is what Joseph taught us ! 

Enough rambling, back to real life where real things get done. 

[3DOP]

On 9/22/2020 at 4:59 PM, stemelbow said:

This, of course, is the biggest problem with all of religion.  If there be a loving God then any religion, all religion or no religion would not matter.  If there be a God who hopes or knows that some will be in hell of whatever sort (like LDS' Terrestrial and Telestial lands), then what is such a god anyway?  A jealous one?  A hostile one?  A ignorant one?  A one who lacks compassion...one who lacks the ability to reach another...one who lacks success?  

What does it matter if one does not ascent to the correct words in the end?  Or one fails to accept a mundane ordinance?  What should matter is whether God has used his resources to teach each and everyone, embracing their ways, and forgiving their inborn weaknesses.  

My problem with religion?  They have made GOd a fool and then turn around and threaten everyone for not embracing the fool.  

Hi again stemelbow and everyone. (I hope I am correct with my first sentence below. I make no such assumption about what follows.) 

I think LDS would agree with Catholics that the only way to have human beings that don't end "in hell of whatever sort" would have been to not have human beings! Part of being human, like part of being God, is free will. To be made in the image of God, is to be unlike the lower animals who respond to instinct and who cannot disobey God. The lower animals do what they are. But humans have the liberty to abuse the gift of free will. When humans do this, it is called sin, which replaces dignity with disorder. Humans are free to do what they are not, if you will. Such souls find themselves out of order with God and the rest of creation, either behaving like a lower animal, or behaving as if it were God. The consequences of permitting creatures to be free is that there will be both greater good and greater bad than if God had only created a thing that looked human with no capacity to choose the evil. Just for your information and to get this out to anyone interested in Catholic thought on the subject, if one who was damned were allowed to choose between hell and non-existence, it would of course be fearful, but hell could be the only proper choice:

"...Catholic teaching on hell does not present it as a sort of perpetual paroxysm 'in which one suffers every evil without any good' as some catechisms have put it...Such a state of existence is metaphysically absurd because it excludes the divine mercy, which operates even in hell, and it leaves out the sense of order born of the fact that the lost soul is in its appropriate place within the moral scheme of the universe."

---Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, p. 700, Sarto House, (1996), Kansas City, MO

According to a footnote on the same page, there are two places in which St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that hell is compatible with varying degrees of happiness. (De malo 5:3, and Commentary on the Sentences, II,d.33,q.2.a.2)

"Mystics, theologians and poets have emphasized the spontaneous element in damnation. In Dante's hell, souls are impatient to throw themselves into their punishment:

'And they are ready to cross the river, the divine justice urging them on, so that their fear turns into desire.'

The reason is this. The lost souls dislike being lost because it is a radical disorder in their being, which latter has missed out on the prize it was offered. But they desire their punishment because, at least extrinsically, it brings some order to their radical disorderliness. St. Catherine of Genoa says that 'if the soul did not find at that point an order proceeding from the justice of God, it would be in greater hell than it is, due to the fact of finding itself outside that order'. In this sense even hell itself is a work of mercy."

---ibid. p. 704

Edited October 4, 2020 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 10/1/2020 at 12:48 PM, mfbukowski said:

That's the contradiction right there- "trying" to be a part of something without joining it.  It's an odd stance.  Sorry- I just finally figured it out from your great comments- "I want to be a Catholic without joining".

Now THAT is something I can understand.     Just change a little of your doctrine for me please, and I will gladly return! 

On a personal note, I am sorry that we have been at odds sometimes in the past.

 

Hi Mark. I too. I must remember this when the time comes for the inevitable disagreement. 

Neither of us is changing our points of view and I don't think we want harmony at the price of being silent so as not to offend. I must invite you, as a fellow who is certainly as fervent and evangelical as I am for a different way of understanding reality, to say what you think you ought to say. I will do the same and try hard not to forget the good will that has arisen between us.

I will never forget hearing Rocky Marciano talk once about how he felt after his heavyweight fights towards his opponent. I don't remember if he actually used the word "love", and I have no intention here of getting all sentimental, but if a pugilist in the ring can emerge from punching and being punched by another with great respect and even affection, maybe it could be similar for those who have fiery verbal combat. I think with Marciano it had something to do with having an intense experience with someone else, that even those observing could not penetrate. In a sense they had become brothers through their ordeal together, and also there was probably a sense of gaining something from an opponent, which could not have been obtained otherwise. Mark, I am sure that whether I appreciated it at the time or not, I have likewise benefited from our sometimes heated exchanges.     

I do not say Marciano was the typical boxer, or that Marciano's opponents felt similarly. Indeed Marciano was probably "atypical" in realizing a different and higher good than merely defeating the opposition. Without holding back, I am hoping that for my part, any future opposition between us will also be "atypical"...at least after "the fight" is over.

God bless,

Rory

[stemelbow]

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

Bingo!  "my sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me: And I give them eternal life (John 10:27)".  He is saying there are many "Christians" who never really heeded his voice and chose to serve mammon instead. 

It means that "workers of iniquity" who hide behind facades of external ordinances, and acts, and words, are spiritually bankrupt.  One can't sneak into the flock wearing sheep's clothing (external superficiality).  The Lord requires the heart.  His flock heeds his voice.  These frauds which he is calling out, never did. 

You were a missionary weren't you?  You understand that the work will not be done until it has been "sounded in every ear".  Of course he goes after those he never considered part of his flock. 

"This is my work and my glory..."

Christ gave compassion to the adulterer, he asked God to forgive those who took his own life, he died for the sinner, he revealed himself as the living water to the Samaritan gentile woman at the well.  Many Samaritans were converted after that.  He invites all to come and drink freely.  Those who heed his voice are his sheep.  But lets ignore all that, I guess. 

Read the scriptures in context.  He invites all to come. 

 "my sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me: And I give them eternal life (John 10:27)". 

It is a direct parallel.  Distinguishing who he knows and who he doesn't.  Those who he knows enter into eternal life. 

I don't understand.  I asked specifically about Matt 7 passages wherein Jesus says he never knew many believers.  What is the parable there?  Are you saying one must read John 10:27 into Matt 7:23?  Are you suggesting that those who perhaps get baptized and yet don't really follow Jesus, are those whom Jesus never knew? Or are they simply people whom He knows but whom he rejects because they do not follow him?  I suppose what this comes down to is, does Jesus only know people whom he considers part of his flock?  How do the two ideas "my sheep hear my voice" and "I never knew you" connect, exactly?  

I admit it's really tough discussing these things when the cop out seems to be, "well what Jesus really meant was..."  If he meant something else, I'd like to see a strong case made to show what he really meant without attempting to read different ideas into his words.  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

Christ often spoke dichotomously, for effect, but he also expounded further upon his words (which is why you need to take thing in context of all his teachings.)  Whatever you think of Jesus' words, you have no right to tell me how I perceive them - telling me my beliefs are "silly" and "sad".  Again, believe whatever you want, just don't pretend like you have me pegged.

I can disagree with you, of course.  I'm not sure why you think that means i"m telling you how you perceive Jesus' words.  I don't know why you're taking this so personally.  I"m simply pointing out what is said, and you somehow disagree (although I admit I feel like you've twisted things into a pretzel so I can't tell how or why you disagree anymore.).  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

I don't think we have a disagreement on what is simplistic and dichotomous.  We have a disagreement on what I believe and how I perceive things. 

I assure you, I am not in any disagreement on what you believe or how you perceive things.  Not in the least.  When I point out what you say comes off as a simplistic view of humanity, treating people's gauges as dichotomously evil or good, seems problematic.  Now, my whole point is that is comes off that way to me.  It seems that way to me.  For me, every time you tell me that Jesus has a certain flock and he knows them and they know him, I see nothing but a simplistic view of humanity, treating people dichotomously.  Humanity doesn't work that way, as I see it.  We each are far more complex.    

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

And quite frankly, you can't tell me how I perceive things!  It is my perception, not yours.

I will not tell you such nor have I ever.  Perhaps this is at the heart of our disagreement--you seem to think I"m saying something I am not in any way saying.  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

My opinion is the only valid one when it comes to my perception.   You are simply refusing to acknowledge my position in good faith dialogue, when in fact, you know better.  

I have no problem with you holding a position, any position you want, in fact.  I do admit your position is a little murky to me.  But I"m happy you hold a position.  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

You know for a fact that there is nothing dichotomous about the plan of salvation. 

huh?  You mean there's no branch between those who are exalted and those who are not?  I certainly do not know that which you think I know.  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

You know that our beliefs about it working on an individual level.  You know that we teach that the glory of resurrected people will be as varied as the stars in heaven.  What is dichotomous about 4 kingdoms (including the kingdom of Satan) with varied degrees within each kingdom? 

I"m really truly not following how this works into our discussion about Matt 7 and Jesus' claim that he doesn't know many believers.  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

 

Why are you attempting to paint me in a way that you know is untrue about me.

I most certainly am not doing anything of the sort.  I don't see why you think this has anything to do with different levels of heaven and all of that.  I simply pointed out, somewhere upthread, that Jesus said there are many believers whom he never knew.  You rejected my reading suggesting he meant something other than he said.  I'm fine if you reject it and think whatever you like.  I told you that many times.  Believe what you want.  I"m simply pointing out what the text says.  And your reading, as it's appeared here and there in the midst of this discussion, seems very problematic in ligh tof hte passage under consideration.  But even then, I still say, believe what you want.  I'm happy you feel like you can disagree with His words or change them to fit what you believe.  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

You are not that far gone are you?  You still remember some of what we believe, right?  Back when you were a believer, would you have accepted someone's accusation that your views are "dichotomous"?  No.

I most definitely would have.  Why are you trying to do that which you are claiming i"m doing?  I would not suggest you believe certain things.  my biggest struggle back in my believing days was due to my deeply held concern for the dichotomous and simplistic conclusion about humanity.  

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, pogi said:

  And you would have been right.  Perhaps you are more enlightened now.  We are actually dichotomous, despite the plan of salvation. 

This is rabbit trailing.  I bit, but I should not have.  What is the parable of Matt 7 verse 23?  

[stemelbow]

On 10/2/2020 at 4:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

Underlining is mine.

Perhaps the same way that "vengeance" is the Lord's.

It doesn't mean that I "possess" that which is underlined.  It doesn't mean that I agree with it.  It doesn't mean that I claim "ownership" of it.  It doesn't mean that what is underlined is an "emotion" that I somehow "possess" 

But I pretty much agree with what YOU SAID in those underlined phrases.  But scriptures are not therefore "useless".   They are inspired words, in the same way a song or a poem can be "inspired" and instill in us strong and sacred emotions.  Good advice is good advice whether it comes from Tolkien or Shakespeare, Gautama Buddha, or Joseph Smith.

Fair enough.  I suppose all books are not necessarily useless, as long as they any of them or any part of them inspire people.  But that really gives a whole new meaning to scripture.  That may suggest any book or writing of any sort that at some point inspired someone to do something good, whatever that may mean to you, is scripture.  If so, then calling a writing scripture is a useless notion, unless of course all writing is scripture.  That actually could have been true thousands of years ago--anything written potentially inspires someone therefore anything written is scripture.  Of course that means you'd have to accept my responses in this thread as scripture.  

On 10/2/2020 at 4:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

Does God "exist"?

To me that's like asking if "red" exists.   Red is an experience you cannot describe to someone who has not ever experienced it.  It does not exist "in the world"- it is according to science which is also linguistic descriptions of men- the effects of certain wavelengths of light on the tissues of the retina and then formulated by the human brain into an experience we call "red".

If you cannot experience, in the hours of your deepest thoughts, desires, prayers and yearnings, that there is an Intelligence to whom you are speaking and who answers, then I cannot say if He is "real" for you, if He is not "real" in your life.

Does He exist as your deepest unconscious idea of Yourself?   Are you yourself the person who puts thoughts and feelings into you?

Artists say things like "it just came to me".   What does that mean?   Atheists like Hitchens speaks freely about an internal "voice" which tells him what is right and wrong.   Do you feel that?   How do you know that it is wrong to steal money from someone else?  How do you know that it is wrong to beat a little child for no reason?  Why do we desire love and peace instead of war?

Any description we give in language of these feelings/ideas/terms will always point to a feeling/person/emotion that we see as a "real" force in our lives, and for me, THAT is God- the experience of that Voice IS what I call God.

There IS "someone" out there, that is what I experience, and that voice out there is what I call God.   Again, like the color red, if you have not known what red is, it cannot be verbalized.   And God cannot be linguistically described either.   Scriptures and philosophers have tried with various kinds of success AND failure.

So the bottom line is that in the final analysis, I think that we pretty much agree.

I think any appearance of disagreement we have is semantic confusion and an inability to communicate effectively between us

I see the "Plan of Salvation" as the BEST paradigm/theory/myth/way of seeing that humans have come up with to describe the Big Picture, but my advice is NOT to get hung up on semantics worrying about "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and taking it apart in 49 different ways and imagining meanings while others do the same, and get all confused over words, and ending up believing that "there is no God" simply because all the words you learned as a child don't always fit together in your adult intellect.

You wouldn't be spending so much time here if you were genuinely NOT trying to figure this all out, I know.   Yes there is always the computer- game tendency to want to come here and stir things up for fun and do a little bashing to stir the ego and pick up some points-  or at least I have that tendency I know.

But don't take it all seriously.

We live in a fog about these matters and all we have is that Voice to guide us.-   Again it is "through a glass darkly"- meaning a mirror- we are not looking at what is "out there" we are looking into ourselves in a mirror as the ancients had them- a brass sheet hammered into smoothness as nearly as possible and tinged in the colors of brass- that reddish/ yellow glow, that does not reflect reality, but our rough and tumble mirror image of it.

And remember it is a MIRROR we see- we look out at God and end up seeing a distorted image of ourselves!   We postulate he is a "Father" which immediately suggests that he is OUR FATHER that we grew up with.  We see him as a human because we are humans.   Even racially, we are drawn to images of say, Jesus who look like us

I won't go into it, but even in the temple, the veil is a mirror.  When we get sealed, mirrors surround us.  Adam and Eve are mirror images of Everyhuman just stumbling along trying to figure it out- falling and triumphing, taking steps forward and backward, waiting for revelation from the VOICE that is after all inside themselves the whole time!

Did we invent God or did God invent us?   The answer is "YES"!

God IS us and we are gods, seeing Him through our mirrors, darkly.

The more we learn about science, the more we learn about how HUMANS perceive the world and put it into words.   It is not about what is "out there" but how we PERCEIVE "what is out there"

So my advice is not to get hung up on the words of men- and in the final analysis- all we HAVE are the words of men.   Even if God appeared to us directly, all we would have is the word of another being like us!- that is what Joseph taught us ! 

Enough rambling, back to real life where real things get done. 

Sure.  I can agree with much of this.  And yet, I'd like to point out, my concerns aren't just my concerns.  I'm pointing these things out because religion gets hung up on these words and ideas.  If we'd treat scripture so passively as you suggest, revising it or thinking it can't possibly describe reality, then of course what's to disagree with?  People just follow what others follow and it doesn't really matter, on such thinking.  But I"d maintain there is something over-riding scripture--humanism.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't understand.  I asked specifically about Matt 7 passages wherein Jesus says he never knew many believers.  What is the parable there?  Are you saying one must read John 10:27 into Matt 7:23?  Are you suggesting that those who perhaps get baptized and yet don't really follow Jesus, are those whom Jesus never knew? Or are they simply people whom He knows but whom he rejects because they do not follow him?  I suppose what this comes down to is, does Jesus only know people whom he considers part of his flock?  How do the two ideas "my sheep hear my voice" and "I never knew you" connect, exactly?  

I admit it's really tough discussing these things when the cop out seems to be, "well what Jesus really meant was..."  If he meant something else, I'd like to see a strong case made to show what he really meant without attempting to read different ideas into his words.  

I can disagree with you, of course.  I'm not sure why you think that means i"m telling you how you perceive Jesus' words.  I don't know why you're taking this so personally.  I"m simply pointing out what is said, and you somehow disagree (although I admit I feel like you've twisted things into a pretzel so I can't tell how or why you disagree anymore.).  

I assure you, I am not in any disagreement on what you believe or how you perceive things.  Not in the least.  When I point out what you say comes off as a simplistic view of humanity, treating people's gauges as dichotomously evil or good, seems problematic.  Now, my whole point is that is comes off that way to me.  It seems that way to me.  For me, every time you tell me that Jesus has a certain flock and he knows them and they know him, I see nothing but a simplistic view of humanity, treating people dichotomously.  Humanity doesn't work that way, as I see it.  We each are far more complex.    

I will not tell you such nor have I ever.  Perhaps this is at the heart of our disagreement--you seem to think I"m saying something I am not in any way saying.  

I have no problem with you holding a position, any position you want, in fact.  I do admit your position is a little murky to me.  But I"m happy you hold a position.  

huh?  You mean there's no branch between those who are exalted and those who are not?  I certainly do not know that which you think I know.  

I"m really truly not following how this works into our discussion about Matt 7 and Jesus' claim that he doesn't know many believers.  

I most certainly am not doing anything of the sort.  I don't see why you think this has anything to do with different levels of heaven and all of that.  I simply pointed out, somewhere upthread, that Jesus said there are many believers whom he never knew.  You rejected my reading suggesting he meant something other than he said.  I'm fine if you reject it and think whatever you like.  I told you that many times.  Believe what you want.  I"m simply pointing out what the text says.  And your reading, as it's appeared here and there in the midst of this discussion, seems very problematic in ligh tof hte passage under consideration.  But even then, I still say, believe what you want.  I'm happy you feel like you can disagree with His words or change them to fit what you believe.  

I most definitely would have.  Why are you trying to do that which you are claiming i"m doing?  I would not suggest you believe certain things.  my biggest struggle back in my believing days was due to my deeply held concern for the dichotomous and simplistic conclusion about humanity.  

This is rabbit trailing.  I bit, but I should not have.  What is the parable of Matt 7 verse 23?  

You are right, everyone should be exalted.   That is much less simplistic.

[stemelbow]

On 10/4/2020 at 9:40 AM, 3DOP said:

Hi again stemelbow and everyone. (I hope I am correct with my first sentence below. I make no such assumption about what follows.) 

I think LDS would agree with Catholics that the only way to have human beings that don't end "in hell of whatever sort" would have been to not have human beings! Part of being human, like part of being God, is free will.

If everyone has free will do you think many would truly pick an eternally painful destination?  HOw is there free will when you don't know what you're signing up for?  

On 10/4/2020 at 9:40 AM, 3DOP said:

To be made in the image of God, is to be unlike the lower animals who respond to instinct and who cannot disobey God. The lower animals do what they are. But humans have the liberty to abuse the gift of free will. When humans do this, it is called sin, which replaces dignity with disorder. Humans are free to do what they are not, if you will. Such souls find themselves out of order with God and the rest of creation, either behaving like a lower animal, or behaving as if it were God. The consequences of permitting creatures to be free is that there will be both greater good and greater bad than if God had only created a thing that looked human with no capacity to choose the evil. Just for your information and to get this out to anyone interested in Catholic thought on the subject, if one who was damned were allowed to choose between hell and non-existence, it would of course be fearful, but hell could be the only proper choice:

"...Catholic teaching on hell does not present it as a sort of perpetual paroxysm 'in which one suffers every evil without any good' as some catechisms have put it...Such a state of existence is metaphysically absurd because it excludes the divine mercy, which operates even in hell, and it leaves out the sense of order born of the fact that the lost soul is in its appropriate place within the moral scheme of the universe."

---Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, p. 700, Sarto House, (1996), Kansas City, MO

According to a footnote on the same page, there are two places in which St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that hell is compatible with varying degrees of happiness. (De malo 5:3, and Commentary on the Sentences, II,d.33,q.2.a.2)

"Mystics, theologians and poets have emphasized the spontaneous element in damnation. In Dante's hell, souls are impatient to throw themselves into their punishment:

'And they are ready to cross the river, the divine justice urging them on, so that their fear turns into desire.'

The reason is this. The lost souls dislike being lost because it is a radical disorder in their being, which latter has missed out on the prize it was offered. But they desire their punishment because, at least extrinsically, it brings some order to their radical disorderliness. St. Catherine of Genoa says that 'if the soul did not find at that point an order proceeding from the justice of God, it would be in greater hell than it is, due to the fact of finding itself outside that order'. In this sense even hell itself is a work of mercy."

---ibid. p. 704

Thanks for the explanation.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right, everyone should be exalted.   That is much less simplistic.

If so, then why is it Jesus says he doesn't know many believers? 

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic in suggesting it's more simple if everyone was exalted rather than many to most not being exalted.  But who knows?  You've surprised me before.  

 

 

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If everyone has free will do you think many would truly pick an eternally painful destination? 

This is an interesting question.  The only way I can answer it is by asking why so many people engage in self destructive behavior today.  Why do we?  Why do people stay in abusive relationships?  Why do people smoke cigarettes when it has clearly been shown to be harmful?  Why do compulsive gamblers keep gambling when it has clearly been shown that the odds are on the side of the house?  etc, etc, etc.

And why should we expect people to behave differently in the next life? 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If so, then why is it Jesus says he doesn't know many believers? 

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic in suggesting it's more simple if everyone was exalted rather than many to most not being exalted.  But who knows?  You've surprised me before.  

Mathematically speaking a monolithic exaltation is more simplistic than a dichotomy. 1 outcome vs two.  The plan of salvation is not a dichotomy, you are being simplistic about the plan and only focusing on one aspect of it.  For how complex you suggest that people are, it is surprising that you only think there should be one outcome - exaltation. 

  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Mathematically speaking a monolithic exaltation is more simplistic than a dichotomy. 1 outcome vs two.  The plan of salvation is not a dichotomy, you are being simplistic about the plan and only focusing on one aspect of it.  For how complex you suggest that people are, it is surprising that you only think there should be one outcome - exaltation. 

  

Where'd you get the idea regarding what I think about our outcome?  I don't assume god nor exaltation at all.  

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is an interesting question.  The only way I can answer it is by asking why so many people engage in self destructive behavior today.  Why do we?  Why do people stay in abusive relationships?  Why do people smoke cigarettes when it has clearly been shown to be harmful?  Why do compulsive gamblers keep gambling when it has clearly been shown that the odds are on the side of the house?  etc, etc, etc.

And why should we expect people to behave differently in the next life? 

So people who end up in lesser levels of heaven or outer darkness amount to people who seek to fix abusive relationships, holding out hope their partner changes; or are people who smoke even though they know it is bad for them, physically, or are gamblers who keep gambling?  

Its as good an explanation as any I suppose.  I don't really agree with the premise of free will to start with though.  

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Where'd you get the idea regarding what I think about our outcome?  I don't assume god nor exaltation at all.  

I know you don't assume a God. However, need I remind you that you have been arguing the point that if there is a God, then excluding any from exaltation makes him an incapable and incompetent "fool"?  Here is one of several quotes to that effect:

Quote

This, of course, is the biggest problem with all of religion.  If there be a loving God then any religion, all religion or no religion would not matter.  If there be a God who hopes or knows that some will be in hell of whatever sort (like LDS' Terrestrial and Telestial lands), then what is such a god anyway?  A jealous one?  A hostile one?  A ignorant one?  A one who lacks compassion...one who lacks the ability to reach another...one who lacks success? 

It seems as though if we were universalists in terms of exaltation, you wouldn't be contending with us.  Which is ironic because that is much more simplistic.  It is more simple then a dichotomy even.  It is monolithic. 

Edited October 5, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know you don't assume a God. However, need I remind you that you have been arguing the point that if there is a God, then excluding any from exaltation makes him an incapable and incompetent "fool"?  Here is one of several quotes to that effect:

It seems as though if we were universalists in terms of exaltation, you wouldn't be contending with us.  Which is ironic because that is much more simplistic 

hah.  My questions?  I guess you got me.  Its more simplistic to think everyone should be saved then there being levels and some eternal hell location for people.  But what that has to do with anything is beyond me.  I simply pointed out religion, and more specifically, Mormonisms simplistic view of humanity.   You are correct in what I perceive as your previous implication on this topic--Mormonism's view of humanity carries more complexity than other traditional Christians.  Fine and dandy if that's what you intended.  

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hah.  My questions?  I guess you got me.  Its more simplistic to think everyone should be saved then there being levels and some eternal hell location for people.  But what that has to do with anything is beyond me.  I simply pointed out religion, and more specifically, Mormonisms simplistic view of humanity.   You are correct in what I perceive as your previous implication on this topic--Mormonism's view of humanity carries more complexity than other traditional Christians.  Fine and dandy if that's what you intended.  

You keep saying that we have a simplistic view of humanity.  I don't know what you mean.  That is total bull fart.  I think you are referring to God's judgment and projecting your interpretation of God's judgment onto our views of humanity.  That makes no sense whatsoever.   Your sole complaint seems to be that his judgment is too simplistic, and yet ironically you think it should be even more simplistic.  You are confusing. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

You keep saying that we have a simplistic view of humanity.  I don't know what you mean.  That is total bull fart.  I think you are referring to God's judgment and projecting your interpretation of God's judgment onto our views of humanity.  That makes no sense whatsoever.   Your sole complaint seems to be that his judgment is too simplistic, and yet ironically you think it should be even more simplistic.  You are confusing. 

I don't think it's too simplistic.  I think the over-arching view of humanity within the religion is too simplistic.  God's judgment is just weird on such a notion, as explained by religion.  I guess you can accuse me of calling his judgment weird, if you want.  

But again, if God sees things as "I never knew you, so you have to be on my left side vs I knew you so you can be on my right side" then this whole argument becomes moot for your side.  

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 I think the over-arching view of humanity within the religion is too simplistic.

What does any of this have to do with our "over-arching" view of humanity?  How is it simplistic?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Fair enough.  I suppose all books are not necessarily useless, as long as they any of them or any part of them inspire people.  But that really gives a whole new meaning to scripture.  That may suggest any book or writing of any sort that at some point inspired someone to do something good, whatever that may mean to you, is scripture.  If so, then calling a writing scripture is a useless notion, unless of course all writing is scripture.  That actually could have been true thousands of years ago--anything written potentially inspires someone therefore anything written is scripture.  Of course that means you'd have to accept my responses in this thread as scripture.  

Sure.  I can agree with much of this.  And yet, I'd like to point out, my concerns aren't just my concerns.  I'm pointing these things out because religion gets hung up on these words and ideas.  If we'd treat scripture so passively as you suggest, revising it or thinking it can't possibly describe reality, then of course what's to disagree with?  People just follow what others follow and it doesn't really matter, on such thinking.  But I"d maintain there is something over-riding scripture--humanism.  

You were not an adult convert, were you?!

Imagine being (perhaps this already describes your position- I suspect it does, but if it does not... I will carry on)

This is how it went for me- imagine you are in the same position I was.

You hear the story about golden plates, the first vision and all that.  You have been studying philosophy.  Clearly the story is absurd and only fools would accept it.  Angels do not appear to people with golden plates.  At best the boy was delusional, or perhaps ate some kind of mushroom in the woods, or it was a story concocted to make himself rich by praying on poor uneducated people.

You have read the bible and understand the Documentary Hypothesis.  The Bible is a group of texts about religious matters put together by a committee of scholars and priests and carefully selected for their allegedly "sacred" content to be included in a collection of such texts in some cases, thousands of years after they were written- in other cases they were only few hundred years old.   People revere these documents as if they were one document assembled as the "Word of God", tend to take them literally, and try to be perfectly obedient to this collection of texts.

You take the book supposedly translated  from the golden plates by the power of god, and notice that on the front it quotes one of the writers of the book as saying that you can have personal revelations from God that the book is "true".

Of course that is absurd, or is it?

All your life you have had deep insights pop into your mind about the nature of reality and about the world.  You have wondered about these things.  You have studied philosophy and nearly finished your Masters in philosophy.   Now you are faced with an assertion that God not only exists but can actually communicate with you, and you are encouraged to try the experiment for yourself, as asserted by the text.

Of course that is absurd or is it?

Long story short, during the course of investigation you have an experience that leaves you without doubt that the assertion that God exists AND can communicate with humans.

You are certain that he has, through the "still small voice", communicated with you.   It is a deeply moving experience.

Time to hit the philosophy books yet again- this time in a different direction.   Could it be logically possible that such experiences exist and that it is rational to accept such experience as "real"?

Further studies reveal that even ATHEISTS have explained and studied such experiences, and though they do not attribute them to God, they acknowledge that they are "valid" for a host of reasons.

Now to your questions.  I have quoted all of them above- now I will take them line by line.

Quote

Fair enough.  I suppose all books are not necessarily useless, as long as they any of them or any part of them inspire people.  But that really gives a whole new meaning to scripture.

Yes and no.  As long as the text is about something which improves your life- or the life of mankind in general- including humanism- AND you ask yourself and receive an answer from God- or your own unconscious- who can know the difference?-- then I treat it "as if" it is "scripture".   I accept it into my life on the same level of "good advice" as I do accept the good advice of scripture.   If there is something in what we call the "Standard Works" which does NOT measure up to my personal revelations- gut feelings- I regard that as "uninspired" or "mistranslated" which may itself include "misinterpreted".   And yet I feel a reverence toward canonized scripture I do not feel from other "good advice".

I would not take that as a "whole new meaning" because since I have been thinking this way, it is now the only meaning I acknowledge for "scripture".   And in fact the church encourages us to "prove every principle and gain our own testimonies" of every principle.  I see this admonition as no different than what I have been doing.

So perhaps it is a new way of seeing scripture for you, but not for me- it is perfectly normal.   Remember I went from knowing that the golden plates were absurd to taking them as the Word of God by this method.   I test ALL TEXTS the same way I tested the Book of Mormon- by applying Moroni 10:4-5.   I see no difference in accepting the advice of some psychologist who has studied these matters to accepting the advice of some text delivered supposedly by an angel

Good advice is good advice.   So of course that extends to statements and teachings by prophets etc.  One prays about it and if one receives a confirmation that it is good advice for me, one accepts it and tries it.  We do the pragmatic test in Alma 32- apply it and see if it produces good fruit in our lives.

So if that is "new" for you, it is new. 

Quote

Of course that means you'd have to accept my responses in this thread as scripture.

Wow sorry but that is an absurd jump.

What you write here, frankly does not pass the test of praying about it and accepting it- as I have just stated above.  One then prays about it and if one receives a confirmation that it is good advice for me, one accepts it and tries to see if it bears good fruit in our lives, per Alma 32  

Sorry but so far I have not seen that from you yet.  

Quote

 

Sure.  I can agree with much of this.  And yet, I'd like to point out, my concerns aren't just my concerns.  I'm pointing these things out because religion gets hung up on these words and ideas.  If we'd treat scripture so passively as you suggest, revising it or thinking it can't possibly describe reality, then of course what's to disagree with?  People just follow what others follow and it doesn't really matter, on such thinking.  But I"d maintain there is something over-riding scripture--humanism.  

 

Words and ideas can be changed, and frankly I believe that we can be a Theistic Humanist church like no other.  No other church prays to a God who is a glorified human being.  No other church's objective is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind.   No other church seeks Zion the way we do.   No other church believes that God "organized" the universe through natural law, and sees Him as an Immanent Father much like our own earthly fathers- the good ones anyway!!   We are materialists as are humanists.  We even believe that spirit is matter- as yet undefinable by physics, but in principle, all is governed by natural law.

We believe that mankind is born not with original sin- but as inherently good, yet given choices which might not be so good!   No Humanist would disagree with the fact that we make wrong choices and bear the consequences.

We want to unify humanity into one family based on love, and guess what- so do humanists.   We look for a Zion unified one -world government governed by the Supreme Human, Jesus Christ, the elimination of poverty and war, and being good stewards of the planet which Humanity has assembled- including the planet itself.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But I"d maintain there is something over-riding scripture--humanism.  

I am only going to quote an article here- and that will be my response.   Humanism and religion are in many ways, independent variables, in other ways are two sides of the same coin.  All emphasis in the following quote was added by me.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-humanism-jim-palmer

 

Quote

 

What is Humanism?

Published on March 28, 2019

Jim PalmerFollow

Author - Speaker - Educator - Spiritual Director - Humanist Chaplain - Ultrarunner - Greyhound Adopter

Like2

Comment0

Share

0

"Jim, do you think Humanism is the best non-religious philosophy to follow?"

*

Humanism has experienced a cultural evolution of sorts, with origins dating back to Epicurus in Ancient Greece. If you want a useful explanation of the origins and development of Humanism as a lifestance or philosophy, I suggest you read The Philosophy of Humanism by Corliss Lamont. It is available on PDF at this link.

Because there is a “Religious Humanism,” which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with some components of religion, the designation of “Secular Humanism” embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, and philosophical naturalism while entirely rejecting religious dogma or supernaturalism as the basis for morality and decision making.

Religious Humanists may not not necessarily be theists or supernaturalists. For example, there are “Christian Humanists” who are not theists or supernaturalists but believe Jesus taught and lived humanistic values and principles.

Many people who follow Humanism as a lifestance or philosophy are non-religious and atheist. The idea of “RELIGIOUS Humanism” is concerning to some, and hence the term “Secular Humanism” to make it clear that it leaves little or no room for religion. Humanism generally speaking is a moral philosophy that says we should be good humans because it's good for humans, and we are humans. Whether or not you feel religion should have any part of that conversation is the difference between “Religious Humanism” and “Secular Humanism.”

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world union of 117 Humanist, rationalist, irreligious, atheistic, Bright, secular, Ethical Culture, and freethought organisations in 38 countries. They define Humanism as follows:

“Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”

The American Humanist Association describes Humanism as:

“Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.”

The relationship between religion and humanism has had quite a few twists and turns through history. When the original Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933, heavily influenced by Unitarians and a few Universlists, the authors explicitly intended and expressed their expectation that Humanism would become the "religion of the future.” The word “religion” is mentioned 14 times in the original manifesto.

Closely related to this discussion is the matter of “spirituality,” and how that relates to Humanism. There is a growing number of people who identify themselves as “Spiritual but Not Religious” (SBNR). I addressed this topic in a more detail in this blog post.

Humanism is an outlook attaching prime importance to being human. Humanist beliefs stress the value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. Outside the framework of religion or supernaturalism, Humanism affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity. Many people tend to equate morality, ethics, spirituality, goodness with religion or belief in God, while a Humanist sees these as innate and inherent human characteristics and interests.

Humanists also view science as the best framework for understanding the origins of the universe and for creating a coherent and meaningful understanding of our place in the world, as opposed to the narratives of religion. Whereas atheism is more of a position (disbelief in the existence of God or gods) humanism is more of a practice - living a meaningful, ethical, responsible, altruistic, spiritual life.

The potential problem I see is in the last three letters - "ism." Any "ism" runs the risk of taking on the same characteristics that make religion problematic. An "ism" typically starts dividing up the world into who's in and who's out. Think of the language people use around isms - "I AM a Christian, "I AM a Buddhist," "I AM an Atheist," "I AM a Humanist" - we adopt these "isms" as our identify and then soon become another religion. Isms can lead to a tribal mentality that separate and divide people, and pit them against each other. When we are entrenched in our isms, we tend to obsess over what makes us different, and lose sight of what makes us similar or unites us as one human family. For example, Abraham Maslow created the "Hierarchy of Needs" as a way of describing the universal needs and desires we all have as human beings. There is much more common ground for cultivating a meaningful unity and harmony, but we struggle to see this when we are entrenched in our tribes, warring against one another. 

A term that has especially risen to prominence in recent years is "identity politics," which are groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity who tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger group. 

You can believe something without making it an ism. I have a firm conviction in gravity but I do not tell people I am a Gravitist or follow Gravitism. Consider the possibility of finding a bigger game in life than following an ism. For example, why not decide that what you ultimately want in life is to actualize the fullest extent of your potentialities and possibilities as a human being. Then you can incorporate what you find as meaningful from various philosophies, without becoming attached to one of them as a religion. Even if you find one philosophy to be sufficient as a framework for a meaningful life, you don't have to make it an ism or turn it into a religion.

 

On the other hand, a humanistic view CAN be the basis for a meaningful life AS a religion, which I believe is exactly one way of viewing- one paradigm- for a way of interpreting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Remember that we are not "supernaturalists"- we believe that God uses entirely NATURAL principles which will one day at least theoretically be understandable through science.

Imagine getting messages and pictures our of the air in the year 1066

Yes, that would be supernatural witchcraft!!   Now of course we understand the science of the many ways that can be done.

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If everyone has free will do you think many would truly pick an eternally painful destination?  HOw is there free will when you don't know what you're signing up for?  

Thanks for the explanation.  

Hi again stemelbow. Good questions

As to the first question. Yes. I need to qualify this answer by saying that no one wants pain. I don't believe that anyone chooses eternal pain for pain's sake. There are too many factors to count that might make one opt for eternal pain. God knows. Here is one: The true religion can appear to be and really be, troublesome and painful. Here is one more: Eternity seems far away. But yes, with qualifiers, I am willing to say that only those who truly pick an eternally painful destination, could be present in hell. That has to be the only way to get in to hell. Hell isn't for those who through no fault of their own, are ignorant about religious truth. Nobody goes to hell except those whose own consciences accuse them in the light of every secret thought, word, and deed and in the light of every actual grace that was offered to them by God and rejected. Nobody will be screaming foul. God will not be partial and the condemned will know it clearly and accept the sentence given in the sight of every rational creature. There will not be the slightest shadow of a doubt in anyone's mind that God is just, and even more so when they see the many ways that were tried to help those who are saved as well as the condemned to save themselves.

Hypothetically, if someone "went to hell" with a clear conscience, knowing that a mistake was made, or an unfair sentence was given, guess what? It wouldn't be hell! The worst pains of hell we understand precisely as the accusation of the soul's own conscience for misusing the liberty which God gives to men. As with heaven, I hold that hell is in some geographical place, but it could not be very painful to someone who knew perfectly that they were innocent before God. There would be joy in that knowledge. There would be love for the good and the true which is God, and so that geographical place, could not be hell for such an individual. And on the other side, if a guilty person were hypothetically misplaced in to heaven? A guilty person would not, misplaced in the geographical location of heaven, have the slightest joy in it.  

No one will be judged for what they do not know. As far as our knowledge goes, we will be judged for what we avoided knowing and for what we did know. Nothing else. The same free will is at work whether one is ignorant or informed, and God will hold no one accountable for what they could not have known. Why would God want to be bad or unfair? Those who can think of a reason for why God would be bad, as well as those of us who can't, will have to wait until the time comes for judgment and then I am expecting that all will see God's wisdom, mercy, and justice for all. He "likes it" when He can get souls "off the hook", if I may use such homely expressions. I use them because we will judge God, while He judges us (Rom. 3). There will be no doubts about God's "good character" to use another human expression, since God wills that we judge Him. Why would He want an audience to judge His judgments if He were not good? We should be able to see already, now, that God must be good. It will be even clearer in the great day. Why would He punish someone for "not know what they are signing up for"? As much as God wills to pardon sinners, He is equally concerned to maintain His own justice in the eyes of creation. God is willing to be held to a perfect standard...if God made one unjust judgment, or if He once betrayed malice towards a single human soul, He would cease to be God. Who would worship, freely obey, give thanks to, and love an almighty tyrant? All creation would despise such a being, howsoever powerful, the contempt of all the universe.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hi again stemelbow. Good questions

As to the first question. Yes. I need to qualify this answer by saying that no one wants pain. I don't believe that anyone chooses eternal pain for pain's sake. There are too many factors to count that might make one opt for eternal pain. God knows. Here is one: The true religion can appear to be and really be, troublesome and painful. Here is one more: Eternity seems far away. But yes, with qualifiers, I am willing to say that only those who truly pick an eternally painful destination, could be present in hell. That has to be the only way to get in to hell. Hell isn't for those who through no fault of their own, are ignorant about religious truth. Nobody goes to hell except those whose own consciences accuse them in the light of every secret thought, word, and deed and in the light of every actual grace that was offered to them by God and rejected. Nobody will be screaming foul. God will not be partial and the condemned will know it clearly and accept the sentence given in the sight of every rational creature. There will not be the slightest shadow of a doubt in anyone's mind that God is just, and even more so when they see the many ways that were tried to help those who are saved as well as the condemned to save themselves.

Hypothetically, if someone "went to hell" with a clear conscience, knowing that a mistake was made, or an unfair sentence was given, guess what? It wouldn't be hell! The worst pains of hell we understand precisely as the accusation of the soul's own conscience for misusing the liberty which God gives to men. As with heaven, I hold that hell is in some geographical place, but it could not be very painful to someone who knew perfectly that they were innocent before God. There would be joy in that knowledge. There would be love for the good and the true which is God, and so that geographical place, could not be hell for such an individual. And on the other side, if a guilty person were hypothetically misplaced in to heaven? A guilty person would not, misplaced in the geographical location of heaven, have the slightest joy in it.  

No one will be judged for what they do not know. As far as our knowledge goes, we will be judged for what we avoided knowing and for what we did know. Nothing else. The same free will is at work whether one is ignorant or informed, and God will hold no one accountable for what they could not have known. Why would God want to be bad or unfair? Those who can think of a reason for why God would be bad, as well as those of us who can't, will have to wait until the time comes for judgment and then I am expecting that all will see God's wisdom, mercy, and justice for all. He "likes it" when He can get souls "off the hook", if I may use such homely expressions. I use them because we will judI kge God, while He judges us (Rom. 3). There will be no doubts about God's "good character" to use another human expression, since God wills that we judge Him. Why would He want an audience to judge His judgments if He were not good? We should be able to see already, now, that God must be good. It will be even clearer in the great day. Why would He punish someone for "not know what they are signing up for"? As much as God wills to pardon sinners, He is equally concerned to maintain His own justice in the eyes of creation. God is willing to be held to a perfect standard...if God made one unjust judgment, or if He once betrayed malice towards a single human soul, He would cease to be God. Who would worship, freely obey, give thanks to, and love an almighty tyrant? All creation would despise such a being, howsoever powerful, the contempt of all the universe.

 

I know you are conservative as a Catholic, I am just wondering how much of this would be palatable to say, Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger?  I must admit I have not followed the internal issues within Catholicism so I kind of don't know how to ask this question

This is really a weird state of affairs for me to be questioning someone on their source of "doctrine" since we are so used to being on the defensive since our doctrine is really quite basic.

All I am asking is- how much of this is is from Rory and how much could be proven to be in some sense Catholic doctrine?

I am not doubting you, I am not asking you to cite sources or back up your comments.  I am just wondering how much of this would seem to be "right" to Catholics in a typical parish (conservative or not- please specify).   Would the liberals accept this? (I suspect yes, of course)  Would the Pius X Society accept it?

Were I be asked the same question regarding my beliefs, I would call them my interpretation of orthopraxy as practiced in the church, but not necessarily how the average LDS member would see doctrine.

So what is your assessment of how close your position is to "orthodoxy"- not in meaning the groups called "Orthodox" but in the sense of "the regular authorized beliefs of most Catholics"?