Jump to content

Is god a mormon?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

The believer could argue that we're not in any condition to know that because God obeys that law, so we have never observed a world where that law was not followed. 

For a discussion on the nature of Justice and Mercy as laws, I would recommend Samuel Morris Brown's excellent paper Why Mormons Aren't Materialists

Basically I don't see you as having any reason for your view besides a belief that justice and mercy are merely human concepts. If they are merely human concepts, why should we consider ourselves bound by them when they are inconvenient? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Basically I don't see you as having any reason for your view besides a belief that justice and mercy are merely human concepts. If they are merely human concepts, why should we consider ourselves bound by them when they are inconvenient? 

Do Humans need a God with a reward/punishment system to be moral and good?  This seem to be what you are implying?

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Can't the demands of justice be met by the truly penitent?  I don't demand death from my children if they commit perceived offenses against me.

Satisfying the demands of justice involves restoring things to the way they should be and would be if there had never been a violation of justice.  Say for example that you tell your children not to throw rocks through windows in people's houses and then later one of them chooses to do that anyway, in violation of what you had told them to not do.  A neighbor's house, while the family who lived there was having dinner at the dining room table, with the rock landing on the table.  Justice would demand that the window of the house be restored to the way it was before the window was broken, as unbroken again, as well as the restoration of peace to that house and the people who were disturbed by the rock that was thrown by one of your children.  So no, death would not solve that problem so death would not be the solution.

What would you do though if for example one of your children introduced death to a world?  When before that everyone there was immortal,. How would you solve that problem? You would need to figure out some way to restore immortal life to all who lost it and became mortal.  A probable perpetual number of people who were later born to the first who became mortal, and any who are still yet to be born..  Looks to me like you would need some kind of wonderful, charitable, immortal person to solve that problem.  Do you have anyone who would be willing to help in mind ?

Link to comment
15 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Don't worry about it.  I think this line of discussion has run its course.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What the...what did I just watch?

One of the very few television appearances of the late, great Daniel Johnston. Maybe he's an acquired taste, but he was pretty great. Given his history, that performance is pretty damn miraculous. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

One of the very few television appearances of the late, great Daniel Johnston. Maybe he's an acquired taste, but he was pretty great. Given his history, that performance is pretty damn miraculous. 

Well, I learned something new today.  I guess I can take the rest of the day off.

Link to comment
Just now, ttribe said:

Well, I learned something new today.  I guess I can take the rest of the day off.

I have a soft spot for underdogs and people who struggle. Daniel Johnston was definitely both.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I had never even heard of the guy until our discussions. I think Calm may remember.

I remember visualizing Pinkie Lee when I heard his name.

But yes, this should end here.

 

Link to comment
On 5/29/2021 at 6:05 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The question is one of authority and keys:  Matt 16:19, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The LDS President holds those keys (and can distribute their use as needed throughout the Church), although the Pope likewise claims them.

And the Popes but them on their coat of arms to make it clear. Here is Pope Francis's:

1024px-Insigne_Francisci.svg.png

Link to comment
On 5/30/2021 at 8:57 PM, Calm said:

I disagree.  I put very little effort into enjoying sunsets and dawns and get great benefits from them.

I think the idea that something has to be hard to achieve to be worthwhile diminishes the joy we can receive from little things, like the smile of a child or the affection of a pet or a patch of wildflowers in the back yard.

It's a very Puritan idea that satisfaction can only come from hard work. Those dang Puritans sure messed up parts of our American worldview.

I love Hilaire Belloc's push back on some of that Puritanism: "Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, There's always laughter and good red wine. At least I've always found it so. Benedicamus Domino!"

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And the Popes but them on their coat of arms to make it clear. Here is Pope Francis's:

1024px-Insigne_Francisci.svg.png

I am curious what acts/rites the Pope participates in that are considered binding and loosing in heaven?  Obviously not eternal marriage or family sealings.

What is the Catholic interpretation of the usage of keys to bind/loose in heaven?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do Humans need a God with a reward/punishment system to be moral and good?  This seem to be what you are implying?

Many philosophers and theologians have explored this question. Google the Euthyphro dilemma for more information. 

However, that's not quite what I'm saying. In my case, what I'm asking is, do morals need to be grounded in reality? If they're merely human constructs, why should we feel bound to follow them when it is inconvenient and we could get away with it? Do they need to be based on something real? If they are not based on something real, do we have any right to demand that others follow them? 

"Humans need a God to be moral" is a favored pinata for skeptics in my experience, because the easy rejoinder is that atheists can live moral lives based on humanistic moralities. I'm not pursuing that argument...yet. For now my question is more fundamental. Do morals have to be based in some kind of law, some kind of reality external to human consciousness? 

I'll put it another way. One objection to religious faith is the argument from religious diversity: there are many religions with similar ways of coming to belief. Therefore, those ways of coming to belief must not be reliable. I do not agree with this argument and do not endorse it (I'm not convinced that religious epistemologies are truly identical and I think reason itself falls prey to similar problems of disagreement and diversity of output, which makes the whole thing self-refuting as any rational argument which debases reason is self-refuting), but this is how it is presented and therefore I present it as an example. Well, if the argument from religious diversity is successful, then most moral systems would fall prey to it as well, since ideals of the moral often differ between societies and we transmit our moralities by the same means, ie childhood indoctrination and intuition. Yes, this includes humanistic morality as well. Well, what right do we have to compel others to follow our moral codes under such circumstances? In my opinion, we don't have any more right to do so than we would have to compel everyone to convert to our religion. If moralities are to be binding, then I think they have to be based on something real. The school of philosophy that defends the idea that moral facts are real and not simply human constructs is called moral realism, and it is a very good thing to be familiar with IMO. 

And if morals are based on something real, then there you have it: laws of Justice and Mercy. The only remaining question is how to properly discover those laws, as humans are notoriously bad at getting laws of the universe right on a first try. For what it's worth, THAT's where I think God enters in: God as the superior moral scientist who knows the moral laws of the universe better than we do. Thus I can combine the validity of divine commands with a clean escape from the aforementioned Euthyphro dilemma. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The school of philosophy that defends the idea that moral facts are real and not simply human constructs is called moral realism, and it is a very good thing to be familiar with IMO. 

So you think there is some kind of ontological gulf/dualism between what is "real" and "human constucts"?

How can we know anything about anything "beyond" human experience/ constructs since all we know IS PRECISELY the humanly constructed human EXPERIENCE of "reality"?

I suggest you then refute Rorty's statements in my siggy.  ;) ;)

God "creates" laws the same way humans create laws and reality- because He also is human!

Infinitely advanced, but human nevertheless

No-thing is anything but a human construction, especially if it was organized by The Human God

THIS is the infallible tautology that makes Mormonism unlike any other religion and puts us in the center of humanism

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you think there is some kind of ontological gulf/dualism between what is "real" and "human constucts"?

How can we know anything about anything "beyond" human experience/ constructs since all we know IS PRECISELY the humanly constructed human EXPERIENCE of "reality"?

I suggest you then refute Rorty's statements in my siggy.  ;) ;)

 

Even the Rorty quote in your siggy presumes that our sentences, by which truth is constructed, are predicated on "causes which do not include human mental states", no? 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Don't worry about it.  I think this line of discussion has run its course.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I had never even heard of the guy until our discussions. I think Calm may remember.

I remember visualizing Pinkie Lee when I heard his name.

But yes, this should end here.

I think we should press on as a demonstration that people in good faith can share, for the sake of discussion, a particular semantic. Whoever brings up the question provides and clarifies the meanings of their terms, especially when the terms are shared but can be used differently.

Link to comment
21 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.

The Disobedience of the word of wisdom regarding tobacco use does have natural consequences. You will get respiratory problems and perhaps lung cancer or throat cancer there are many natural consequences of smoking cigarettes. The same can be said for alcohol abuse. You'll get liver problems this is a natural consequence of not obeying the word of wisdom regarding alcohol.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

The Disobedience of the word of wisdom regarding tobacco use does have natural consequences. You will get respiratory problems and perhaps lung cancer or throat cancer there are many natural consequences of smoking cigarettes. The same can be said for alcohol abuse. You'll get liver problems this is a natural consequence of not obeying the word of wisdom regarding alcohol.

Sigh...those results are the same regardless of whether tobacco use or alcohol is classified as a sin. You're coming at this exactly backwards. 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, ttribe said:

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.

The earth may not spin off it's axis if someone smokes a cigarette, but part of nature (that person) becomes less healthy.  That would seem to be a natural reaction.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Sigh...those results are the same regardless of whether tobacco use or alcohol is classified as a sin. You're coming at this exactly backwards. 

The classification of something as a sin simply means it is classified as something that is bad and should not be done, according to what God has told us.  And as is really the case, it is really bad for us and therefore something we should not do.

God is right, and always is right, after all.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Even the Rorty quote in your siggy presumes that our sentences, by which truth is constructed, are predicated on "causes which do not include human mental states", no? 

Yes - good point- but they are unknowable in principle at least for us, perhaps not to God.   I suppose we could postulate that He can experience /"see" what we call "quarks" quarking along- butI have trouble with that and how that would work with even with what "matter unorganized" could mean to God in his immanent state.

My idea is that He has taken upon himself immanence- voluntarily- and THAT is part of the story of the Fall.   That was the sacrifice God endured- becoming man and then voluntarily taking upon himself, due to that voluntary immanence, EVERY experience both good and bad- which humans are capable of having.

I kind of like the Adam-God theory because it leaves open the possibility  of the triumph and advance that the "Fall" was- and takes it to a higher level.    If we see it as God beoming immanent voluntarily, as at least Eve voluntarily "fell" for the greater spiritual good of humanity. THAT was Eve's wisdom, and why she is named by others AS "Wisdom", the Goddess.  That also makes Her, for me, a oandidate  for being the Holy Ghost, one who brings wisdom.  But of course that is just a tiny bet heretical.                           

The Fall then as God's voluntary decision to become immanent,  opened the door for the Second Adam- Christ- becoming the "Father" of our salvation, immortality and eternal life.  Christ IS/WAS an immanent human being as are we.

I just love that idea.

And Christ only does what He has seen Father do.   In my prayers I experience no practical difference between Father and Son.

And He did this so that we would always have someoe with us who had done it all before, so that He could comfort us in any trial- because he had been through every possible trial before we did.

So if God can experience the underlying causes of our experience directly knowing them,  how can he speak of "matter unorganixed"?   It would have to be instantly organized by his intelligence into at least a category of "matter unorganized"

Ever been to a landfill?  In every way possible THAT is matter unorganized- actually intentionally DIS-organized into the "garbage" category.  But yet even speaking of "matter unorganized" creates its own category, thereby organizing matter unorganized.

Thanks for the reply- it's great bouncing these ideas off you.   Get a little dialectical action goiin here!

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think we should press on as a demonstration that people in good faith can share, for the sake of discussion, a particular semantic. Whoever brings up the question provides and clarifies the meanings of their terms, especially when the terms are shared but can be used differently.

OK but tell that Bukowski guy to turn off his "snark" button.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am curious what acts/rites the Pope participates in that are considered binding and loosing in heaven?  Obviously not eternal marriage or family sealings.

What is the Catholic interpretation of the usage of keys to bind/loose in heaven?

It specifically refers to the authority to bind/loose sins. It also includes the authority to declare dogma and binding scriptural interpretations, to set Church policy, and to set sacramental rites.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Sigh...those results are the same regardless of whether tobacco use or alcohol is classified as a sin. You're coming at this exactly backwards. 

HUH??

That's what you were looking for- an example of "natural" - (ie: irrelevant to the idea of "sin"- ) consequences of breaking the word of wisdom.

Every single consequence of disease or accidents are natural consequences of breaking those dietary restrictions- regardless of whether or not they are defined as "sins"

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...