Jump to content

Is god a mormon?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again with the idea that justice is somehow God's opinion and willingness to forgive or not.  That's wrong.

No.  You think it is wrong.  You could be wrong.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, that is exactly what you were doing.

So now WE have to go back and figure out what semantics you were using.   What you believe is "evident" is not "evident to anyone else.  Why should I go back and try to analyze what YOU meant?

So you are re-asserting your semantics then.

Totally absurd. Disobedience to the WOW can cause addictions- a natural consequence.  Smoking causes cancer- a natural consequence. Drunkeness causes a variety of evils like traffic accidents, possibly leading to fatalities- another natural consequence.  And that's just the beginning.

No these do not result in the earth spinning off its axis, an absurd analogy.

Nevertheless, only under your absurd semantics does your statement illustrate your absurd point.

Not sure of what this has to do with the point you are trying to make, but these assertions come out of your special pleading definition of "natural"

If something is caused by a human, apparently it cannot be a "natural" consequence, even though humans are not exactly "unnatural" beings.   Last time I looked, babies are born by a natural process.  We are certainy not "supernatural" either.  Scriptures speak of the "natural man" and since this is a spiritual discussion it seems NATURAL to see Humans as "natural".

That makes "societal" consequences natural as well.

And getting a recommend requires a natural human being to pick up a natural pen and draw some natural, phyical  squiggles on a piece of what we call "paper" made using "natural processes" or using his natural mind, refusing to perform those actions,

The entire proposition that what humans do is not "natural" seems totally absurd to me, and totally arbitrary, a new dualism that is undefinable.

Both signing a temple recommend  or not signing it is now an "unnatural act".

Interesting

It's just too absurd- I am out

Oh, Mark. You sure do have a penchant for overreacting and shoving words into people's mouths.  Given our past, I think I'll just leave your post without a response; experience tells me you aren't actually interested in what I really think.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Laws like justice or broken laws originate from somewhere. 

Why?  Because you said so?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?  Because you said so?

No. Because it is true. 

Aren't you just saying so regarding your position?  Or rather because your holy books say so?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, Mark. You sure do have a penchant for overreacting and shoving words into people's mouths.  Given our past, I think I'll just leave your post without a response; experience tells me you aren't actually interested in what I really think.

I find that getting into old bad habits just wastes time.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No. Because it is true. 

Aren't you just saying so regarding your position?  Or rather because your holy books say so?

You don't believe anyone created the first law of thermodynamics by which the universe operates.  Why do you insist somebody created the law that says love is good and hate is bad?  Isn't that just as natural and universal?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't believe anyone created the first law of thermodynamics by which the universe operatens.  Why do you insist somebody created the law that says love is good and hate is bad?  Isn't that just as natural and universal?

I would he happy to think about it.  But it seems to me laws, rules, contracts, nations, constitutions, borders, etc are all imaginary things humans create and then accept to make them of force and real.  The concept of a broken law an justice has not been constant in all of human history, cultures and societies and is not today. In an Islamic nation you may get your hand cut off for stealing something. You broke the law and this is your payment and thus justice is served.  But in the US we don't cut off hands for stealing. The law of thermodynamics is a fact of nature.  It just exists. It is a physical law.  Mercy and justice are not.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was thinking of this:

”Doctrine refers to the eternal, unchanging, and simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are several key words in that definition: eternal, unchanging, simple, and truth. Doctrines are never altered. They never vary. They will always be the same. You can always count on them. There is, for example, the doctrine of the Atonement. There is doctrine related to priesthood and priesthood keys. There is doctrine related to continuing revelation and the pattern whereby our Heavenly Father communicates with us and we communicate with Him. These are eternal, unchanging truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

 

Of course the paradigm does not change- otherwise it would be another paradigm.

And of course all prophets seers and revelators are infallible even in fields they have not studied. B:)

Newton's physics will always be Newton's physics- though at one point it will no longer work.   Newton's physics is "unchanging" because if it changes it will no longer be "Newton's" physics.

Surely you see that.

If Christianity no longer believes in the atonement, it is no longer Christianity.

See how it is all definitions?   I know you understand that so stop faking it.  And if someone has trouble with that, suddenly it is called "policy" and taken out of the category of "doctrine".

This is "human nature".   We like uchanging truth but unfortuately it doesn't exist, philosophically, except in fundamentalism where it exists "by definition"

Science does the same thing.   Is Pluto a "planet" this week?  Look at all the re-classifications in zoology.  And one of my favorites is the number of "new species" discovered in Asian fish markets that have been fished and eaten, and have had local names and recipes for years.

It's doctrine until it's not.

Link to comment
Just now, mfbukowski said:

Of course the paradigm does not change- otherwise it would be another paradigm.

And of course all prophets seers and revelators are infallible even in fields they have not studied. B:)

Newton's physics will always be Newton's physics- though at one point it will no longer work.   Newton's physics is "unchanging" because if it changes it will no longer be "Newton's" physics.

Surely you see that.

If Christianity no longer believes in the atonement, it is no longer Christianity.

See how it is all definitions?   I know you understand that so stop faking it.  And if someone has trouble with that, suddenly it is called "policy" and taken out of the category of "doctrine".

This is "human nature".   We like uchanging truth but unfortuately it doesn't exist, philosophically, except in fundamentalism where it exists "by definition"

Science does the same thing.   Is Pluto a "planet" this week?  Look at all the re-classifications in zoology.  And one of my favorites is the number of "new species" discovered in Asian fish markets that have been fished and eaten, and have had local names and recipes for years.

It's doctrine until it's not.

This is a good reminder of why I avoid these kinds of conversations. No point talking to someone who insists you’re faking it. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Mercy and justice are not.

You ever read the Asimov Foundation books?  Individuals cannot be predicted with any great accuracy (at least not till mindreading is possible), but his idea was when taken as a large enough mass of humanity there are sociological laws that allow one to chart a society’s course (subject to unpredictable evolutionary and other changes).

Not saying it is true, but psychology, sociology, economy, and many other fields exist based on the idea that human behaviour follows certain tendencies which could be identified as “laws” in the same way that there are physical laws. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, Mark. You sure do have a penchant for overreacting and shoving words into people's mouths.  Given our past, I think I'll just leave your post without a response; experience tells me you aren't actually interested in what I really think.

And yet this IS a response.

I am actually VERY interested in what you think, and honestly I wish you would reconsider how you do think.   I feel you are so dang close to it, I get frustrated.

I see it as "tough love" but I can understand why others see it  other ways.   I am working on it.  

Usually it is because I cannot understand how anyone sees it differently than I do, which I suppose is a rather childish way of seeing it.

But it is so CLEAR to me, I feel like I am seeing right through chicken wire on a fence, while everyone sees the chicken wire as concrete block.  I get very frustrated.   I am genuinely sorry for losing it.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would he happy to think about it.  But it seems to me laws, rules, contracts, nations, constitutions, borders, etc are all imaginary things humans create and then accept to make them of force and real.  The concept of a broken law an justice has not been constant in all of human history, cultures and societies and is not today. In an Islamic nation you may get your hand cut off for stealing something. You broke the law and this is your payment and thus justice is served.  But in the US we don't cut off hands for stealing. The law of thermodynamics is a fact of nature.  It just exists. It is a physical law.  Mercy and justice are not.

But the act of stealing is a universal evil.  Even those that happily do it generally understand it's "sin" and don't want their own possessions taken.  Having possessions stolen is universally seen as bad - naturally.  Just like thermodynamics.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But the act of stealing is a universal evil.

Depends on how it is defined. Stealing from outside the tribe in the past was not always seen as sinful and in fact might be celebrated. 
 

Having something stolen from you was likely seen as bad...unless it was something you didn’t want. 

Iwould say it as instead loss of what was viewed as valuable was seen as an universal evil.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on how it is defined. Stealing from outside the tribe in the past was not always seen as sinful and in fact might be celebrated. 
 

Having something stolen from you was likely seen as bad...unless it was something you didn’t want. 

Iwould say it as instead loss of what was viewed as valuable was seen as an universal evil.

 

Sure.  But there is always a universal law of good and evil.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Indeed.  Perhaps Mark's beef is with Elder Bednar, not you, nor I?

I love Elder Bednar's talks because he is totally consistent in following his paradigm.

He's a brilliant man who knows he is speaking to children, and that is his calling, and he does it fabulously.

It seems to me that others don't even understand they are within a paradigm that rules their thoughts while the thoughts should be ruling the paradigm.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Unfortunately, 'a matter of semantics' doesn't quite capture the discussion.  If you go back and look at my comments on this subject, I believe it is very evident what I consider to be a natural law versus spiritual laws regarding the concept of 'sin.'  It continues to be my assertion that there is no 'sin' which results in a violation of a natural law.  For example, disobedience to the Word of Wisdom does not result in the earth spinning off its axis.  The consequences of 'sin' are either: 1) imposed by humans or a Diety; or 2), societal.  It may follow that a person loses his or her Temple Recommend as a result of disobedience, but nature has no reaction to that event.

But the matter of semantics captures your immediate question ("So, tell me then, what are the natural law consequences of sin?") without requiring me to weed through pages of inter-poster haranguing and commiseration to try to ascertain what is supposed to be "evident" when clearly it is not, after all these pages. Without your definitions of "natural law", "sin" and "spiritual" your assertion and examples remain unclear, and even lack rationale (I don't want to make assumptions), to me. Not providing definitions forestalls my response to your question. If it is a rhetorical question, you would have said so by now; your definitions will allow me to respond with something other than my own assertion contextualized by my own definitions and equally senseless to you.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you expect a sentient being to be consistent and easily summarized with good defining lines as to what they will or will not do you are talking about a fictional character. Humans aren’t that predictable. Expecting God to be neatly summarizable by a list of attributes is silly unless God is less than human.

If you believe God is fictional then it is easy to pigeonhole them. You can tell what Odin or Loki would do in a given situation. Jesus almost never did the expected thing. People do the cutesy “What would Jesus do” line as if the answer is incredibly obvious. It is emphatically not.

So yes, the conception of God will change. The more righteous the people the better they will understand Him and misconceptions and the like will fall away as they grow closer to the truth. We stand on the shoulders of giants who paved the way this far and now we must learn more.

These are top-tier insights. Thank you. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The law of thermodynamics is a fact of nature.  It just exists. It is a physical law.  Mercy and justice are not.

This is actually an interesting note. The conception of natural tendencies as "laws" owes itself to Roman Catholic scholastic philosophy which posited God as a ruling Creator and thus determined that nature was to be described using the vocabulary of law. Just another one of Christianity's many "stealth framings" of the modern conceptual landscape. 

In a very real sense, though, digging into the concept of "natural law" opens up something of a can of worms. In the materialistic, naturalistic worldview associated with contemporary skepticism, Platonism is generally denied. Platonism (heavily simplified) is the view that there are real but immaterial "forms" which serve to define configurations of matter, and it is by these forms that we recognize, say, a chair, for what it is: a configuration of matter that matches the "form of chair" gets called a chair. The Catholic scholastics were heavily influenced by Plato and his student Aristotle, and thus natural laws were originally conceived as these immaterial Platonic forms, decrees in the mind of God before which matter bows. 

However, if you remove the Platonism as modern skeptics do, you don't really have laws anymore since there's no immaterial, guiding force. You cannot have a law without a law. You have predictable tendencies, true, but those tendencies go unexplained or are simply asserted as brute facts because, like the hard problem of consciousness, they exist on the fringes where you can't even begin to conceive of a way for science to investigate them using its current methods. No "why" can be asserted, the best that can be done amounts to a "nothing to see here, move on." Invocations of "natural law" by skeptics are basically counterfeits, borrowing the verbiage of an idea whose foundations they have already discarded. Science depends on the simplicity and understandability of the world: simplicity being that laws exist and understandability being that those laws can predict future events. These things have been taken for granted by the modern skeptical worldview, but ironically they cannot be explained within that worldview. Bertrand Russell's argument against the idea that "natural law provides evidence that there is a Lawgiver" had the unfortunate implication of wrecking the theoretical foundations of science, which is why it fails. See: http://www.mit.edu/activities/mitmsa/NewSite/libstuff/russell/node3.html#:~:text=The Natural Law argument states,being who enacted these laws.&text=You have really a law,not the ultimate law-giver.

I do look forward to further advances in quantum studies because quantum phenomena appear to violate our conceptions of what a classical "natural law" should be. If the existence of reliable, classical "natural laws" are not in fact generalizable across scales, then that defeats the "that's just how the universe is" argument, which in my mind provides further evidence for a controlling Lawgiver.

Of course, you can be an atheist and a Platonist, and many philosophers of mathematics are since Platonism regarding the existence of numbers is a viable view (are numbers actually a real thing? Seems like they are, but they can't be material, which leaves Platonism as the next best option.) But the adoption of any kind of Platonism represents a surrender of materialism, and that lets the theistic camel get its nose under the tent flap in my opinion. 

But anyways, with regard to "mercy" and "justice". They might be interpreted differently in various cultures, and thus different cultures will do different things and call them "mercy" and "justice". But why do you think that the essential core concept, the Wittgensteinian "sense" of mercy and justice, would not be laws? 

Edit: I made a mistake in my description of Platonism. Forms don't just define configurations of matter, there can be forms that do not correspond to anything material, such as numbers or God on the creedal Christian view. The idea that forms give us the ability to distinguish between various configurations of matter, that objects are a combination of matter and form, is called hylomorphism, and though hylomorphism is only a part of the general idea of Platonism, it is still a very important part. 

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

This is a good reminder of why I avoid these kinds of conversations. No point talking to someone who insists you’re faking it. 

I don't think that.

I just think your position is not thought through 

Too much Pinker and not enough Rorty.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

not enough Rorty.

Dr. Bukowski's perennial diagnosis :P

I love it though.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Dr. Bukowski's perennial diagnosis :P

I love it though.

Well honestly, when I opened the book and read those paragraphs,  now in my siggy, I was stunned with their clarity and simplicity,and how it was even possible to jam so much philosophy into so few words

Stunned.

That is 2000 years of philosophical alleged problems, solved in about a hundred words.

"I have to post this! This guy summarizes Pragmatism and phenomenology in a hundred words AND as an atheist he justifies religion all in a few words!!!

This is IT!

This can convert the world!"

So I post it here.

Raspberries.

I point it out and repeat it every chance I get.

Raspberries. 

It's enough to make even a cheerful and pleasant puppy dog like me get a little grumpy.  ;)

So I tell everyone to read it.

What's worse than raspberries?

By now they're throwing rotten tomatoes. 😠

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Dr. Bukowski's perennial diagnosis :P

I love it though.

And John and I go back a ways regarding Pinker on postmodernism but we have pledged silence on certain aspects of that for the good of humanity, lest we start WWIII.

This is just for you- don't tell anyone I referred you to this article.

The future of humanity depends on it

"Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now is a huge hit. Too bad it gets the Enlightenment wrong. - Vox" https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2018/5/17/17362548/pinker-enlightenment-now-two-cultures-rationality-war-debate

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And John and I go back a ways regarding Pinker on postmodernism but we have pledged silence on certain aspects of that for the good of humanity, lest we start WWIII.

This is just for you- don't tell anyone I referred you to this article.

The future of humanity depends on it

"Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now is a huge hit. Too bad it gets the Enlightenment wrong. - Vox" https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2018/5/17/17362548/pinker-enlightenment-now-two-cultures-rationality-war-debate

Well, that's odd, given that I've never discussed Pinker with you, until just the other day in passing. Not about to start now, of course. Carry on.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
12 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

But anyways, with regard to "mercy" and "justice". They might be interpreted differently in various cultures, and thus different cultures will do different things and call them "mercy" and "justice". But why do you think that the essential core concept, the Wittgensteinian "sense" of mercy and justice, would not be laws? 

I don't think I said that they are not laws. I said that they are human constructs and not some eternal law. The idea is that God is bound by this eternal law the say due to justice if you sin death is the penalty seems to me to be a human concept not a natural law on which the Universe operates and exists. It seems to me that the universe would continue on its way quite fine if we rejected that justice requires a payment of death for sin.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...