Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 6 minutes ago, Calm said: If something is by nature an internal experience, it is not an issue of convenience or not that it is internal and therefore not observable by others. But that can work for anything. If someone has an internal witness that the flying spaghetti monster is God we might think they are nuts.
Calm Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 12 minutes ago, Teancum said: But that can work for anything. If someone has an internal witness that the flying spaghetti monster is God we might think they are nuts. Unfortunate side effect with humans not being telepathic...you can argue with the creation/evolution process if you want, but I see that as a waste of time.
rodheadlee Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 On 5/31/2021 at 11:12 AM, The Nehor said: I also suspect a part of it is due to some eternal laws I do not understand. Is God sending angels to appear to everyone God wants to or is there some kind of law governing when it can be done? No idea. You have to exercise the keys to the ministering of angels. As an Aaronic priesthood holder it's one of the few tools I am allowed to use.
Jamie Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 47 minutes ago, Teancum said: I totally understand it. Why can't God wipe away our sins. Islam rejects the need for a vicarious sacrifice and finds the idea that God sacrificed His Son for our sins ludicrous. Look I can parrot and repeat all you can from the scriptures and the doctrine about the atonement. It still does not answer the why really. I told you the why. Our actions must have consequences and God can't just dismiss those consequences or the actions we took to cause them. For someone who claims to understand why you sure don't act like you understand what I told you.
ttribe Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's not about God's forgiveness. IE it's not just that he's offended. It's that sin breaks a law, an eternal law, that even God doesn't get to ignore. He provided a Savior to ensure that the justice aspect of eternal law is met while at the same time providing mercy to us foolish mortals that broke it. If forgiveness was simply a matter of God's discretion then sure, he could just forgive and forget and let the broken law go unsatisfied. But then he'd cease to be God. So, God is constrained by a garbage system which requires blood sacrifice to meet its demands? Come now, does that really make any rational sense?
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 12 minutes ago, Jamie said: I told you the why. Our actions must have consequences and God can't just dismiss those consequences or the actions we took to cause them. For someone who claims to understand why you sure don't act like you understand what I told you. I totally understand it. Let's ask it a different way. Why would can't an omnipotent God forgive without spilling blood? If one of his creations is truly repentant why does someone have to die? Your answer is simply to repeat what your religion tells you and what you think is true. Try to think outside your Mormon box for a few minutes. And the man you believe to be a the Prophet of the restoration says whatever God does is right. He can command and revoke as he wishes.
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 43 minutes ago, Calm said: Unfortunate side effect with humans not being telepathic...you can argue with the creation/evolution process if you want, but I see that as a waste of time. Not sure I follow....
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 7 minutes ago, ttribe said: So, God is constrained by a garbage system which requires blood sacrifice to meet its demands? Come now, does that really make any rational sense? In the end, it comes down to "an eternal law that God doesn't get to break." When you ask who made this law, and why, it's just because that's the way it is. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Correct. Religious claims are within the purview of scientific inquiry, but only if those claims are logically falsifiable. Normative Judeo-Christian claims are outside the realm of logic: Metaphysical claims are not subject to scientific evaluation. The LDS Canon of Scripture contains a great deal that is testable via science and logic, and LDS theology is not metaphysical, and is subject to forensic scientific and logical inquiry. Have you ever bothered to subject LDS claims to scientific inquiry? People have the right to use whatever means they find adequate for their beliefs, and you have a perfect right to refuse to accept those ideas. That does not mean that they are wrong. Who set you up as the final arbiter? The Lectures on Faith were authored primarily by Sidney Rigdon, who had Protestant theological training. Adam-God theory is heresy and has been rejected by the LDS Church. In his own time, Orson Pratt vigorously opposed Adam-God theory, much to Brigham's consternation. Alma 32 presents the scientific method, and applies it to what "works" in much the same measurable way that psychotherapy works. In both, a new understanding of the world changes lives The goal of both could be stated as "bringing peace to the soul" And to repeat yet again, we have William James, one of founders of modern psychology, speaking of "radical empiricism" encompassing ALL of human experience. Those who do not understand that science is actually a chronicle of how humans interact with/experience the world, and not a "mirror of nature" (Rorty) will never get it I think. The more we examine "the world" what we really discover is how WE perceive, interpret and analyze the world, hence the growing interest in cognitive science by "theologians". The phenomenological way of seeing, including Pragmatism, now dominates the philosophy of religion, and relates directly to this question Many now take scientism on faith without proof: it now IS a secular religion. Political movements are also secular religions, and why that is not instantly obvious to everyone remains a mystery to me. People will die for politics as others used to die for religion.
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 16 minutes ago, ttribe said: So, God is constrained by a garbage system which requires blood sacrifice to meet its demands? Come now, does that really make any rational sense? 8 minutes ago, Teancum said: I totally understand it. Let's ask it a different way. Why would can't an omnipotent God forgive without spilling blood? If one of his creations is truly repentant why does someone have to die? Your answer is simply to repeat what your religion tells you and what you think is true. Try to think outside your Mormon box for a few minutes. And the man you believe to be a the Prophet of the restoration says whatever God does is right. He can command and revoke as he wishes. 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: In the end, it comes down to "an eternal law that God doesn't get to break." When you ask who made this law, and why, it's just because that's the way it is. Really, that's the best response? Not every law has to be established by somebody or perhaps the Eloheim established them eternities ago. It doesn't matter. Natural law if you prefer - cause and effect. Nobody makes it so you get wet when you are immersed in water. You just do. And it's not that it requires "blood sacrifice". It's as scripture tells us that the "wages of sin is death". Sin is literally anti-life. When sin exists it results in death. Even if God didn't enforce it death would be the natural consequence of sin. Original sin (or transgression of eternal/natural law) is literally what made us mortal beings. God had no say in the result, it wasn't a punishment or the wrath of a vengeful deity. It simply was. What God did have a say in was a plan to meet the demands of law without us remaining in the grave. 3
Calm Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 14 minutes ago, Teancum said: Not sure I follow.... The only way we could scientifically measure thoughts was if we were able to mind read, thus be able to connect specific thoughts to specific brain activity as well as compare internal experiences during shared alleged external such as a shared vision.
ttribe Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Really, that's the best response? Not every law has to be established by somebody or perhaps the Eloheim established them eternities ago. It doesn't matter. Natural law if you prefer - cause and effect. Nobody makes it so you get wet when you are immersed in water. You just do. And it's not that it requires "blood sacrifice". It's as scripture tells us that the "wages of sin is death". Sin is literally anti-life. When sin exists it results in death. Even if God didn't enforce it death would be the natural consequence of sin. Original sin (or transgression of eternal/natural law) is literally what made us mortal beings. God had no say in the result, it wasn't a punishment or the wrath of a vengeful deity. It simply was. What God did have a say in was a plan to meet the demands of law without us remaining in the grave. Yep @jkwilliams, you nailed it. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Alma 32 presents the scientific method, and applies it to what "works" in much the same measurable way that psychotherapy works. In both, a new understanding of the world changes lives The goal of both could be stated as "bringing peace to the soul" And to repeat yet again, we have William James, one of founders of modern psychology, speaking of "radical empiricism" encompassing ALL of human experience. Those who do not understand that science is actually a chronicle of how humans interact with/experience the world, and not a "mirror of nature" (Rorty) will never get it I think. The more we examine "the world" what we really discover is how WE perceive, interpret and analyze the world, hence the growing interest in cognitive science by "theologians". The phenomenological way of seeing, including Pragmatism, now dominates the philosophy of religion, and relates directly to this question Many now take scientism on faith without proof: it now IS a secular religion. Science and technology do get results, and Elon Musk is making a serious business of it. As a practical matter, it is not at all metaphysical. I see no reason not to apply science and technology directly to claims made, for example, in the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. The STEM fields can tell us a lot, and I have applied them as best I can. Naturally, the experimental method in Alma 32 can be applied forensically or metaphysically. Teancum seems unable to distinguish between the two. 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Political movements are also secular religions, and why that is not instantly obvious to everyone remains a mystery to me. People will die for politics as others used to die for religion. Yes, Bertrand Russell defined Marxism as religion, and it scared him. Of course all religion scared him. 1
CV75 Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) 36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: In the end, it comes down to "an eternal law that God doesn't get to break." When you ask who made this law, and why, it's just because that's the way it is. @ttribe, @Teancum This reply is not quite accurate. For example, Satan was a god who got to break this law and ceased to be a god (akin to Alma 42 wherever it says, “cease to be God.”). We chose a world where these laws are in play; Satan did not. He was cast into an estate with a different set of laws than the estate we chose to enter. The infinite atonement of Christ in part entailed the spilling of His blood and His death upon the cross to answer, in part, maximal mortal suffering, which includes the suffering of the spirit after death. The answer is to establish that He suffered these things as mortals do, and overcame them as mortals cannot. Edited June 1, 2021 by CV75 3
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: Yep @jkwilliams, you nailed it. You don't believe in natural consequences?
Jamie Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 39 minutes ago, Teancum said: I totally understand it. Let's ask it a different way. Why would can't an omnipotent God forgive without spilling blood? If one of his creations is truly repentant why does someone have to die? Your answer is simply to repeat what your religion tells you and what you think is true. Try to think outside your Mormon box for a few minutes. And the man you believe to be a the Prophet of the restoration says whatever God does is right. He can command and revoke as he wishes. Your attempt to ask the same question in a different way is asking a different question, and it also doesn't indicate you understand the original question. Let me see if I can do better at asking the original question in a different way now. Do you think God could ever negate any action by pretending that action never happened? If you think so then I think you either do not understand what forgiveness is, or you think God can somehow negate an action by pretending that action never happened.
ttribe Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) 30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You don't believe in natural consequences? Not when their foundation is explained by reference to a scriptural passage "the wages of sin is death." Death is a natural consequence of life, not sin. 'Sin' is a concept which lies completely outside the "natural" plane; it's a behavioral construct, either created by humans or (as you prefer) a Deity. One could live a perfectly 'sinless' existence and will inevitably die. The attachment of sin to something called 'eternal life,' whether you choose to define that as immortality or elevation to a higher 'kingdom' or both, is a consequence which you happen to believe exists, but has nothing to do with observable natural law. If you further define 'death' as 'separation from God,' then that is once more construct which is separate from observable natural law. You are attempting to say that sin has consequences that are 'natural,' but have to rely upon non-observable phenomenon to do it. That is definition of 'natural law' which is inconsistent with its common use. Edited June 1, 2021 by ttribe 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Teancum said: ................. Does it not seem convenient that so many religious claims are not falsifiable and that metaphysical claims are not subject scientific evaluation. It seems to me that such an approach opens up a Pandora's box of almost anything goes. Exactly, but then you go and once again ignore your own assertion. I am agreeing with you that the canons of logic require that we put aside metaphysics and non-falsifiable claims. They are not subject to empirical or logical verification. Once we have agreed on that, that leaves a great deal of territory to be covered by the STEM fields, or do you not understand the nature of science and logic? Quote What LDS claims have I subjected to scientific claim? The BoM, BoA, the nature of a corporeal God subject to the laws of physics, nature etc. So far as I can tell, you have neglected to take any claims in the LDS Canon seriously enough to subject them to science and logic. Either that or you don't know how, and are unfamiliar with the literature on the subject. You similarly seem to confuse LDS theology with normative Judeo-Christian theology, although they are fundamentally different. Quote People can believe whatever they want. I don't pretend to be the final arbiter at all. Why do you suppose that? This is a discussion board is it not? I am here discussing. I am open to being wrong or right or in between. Ultimately I am only an arbiter for what I believe. The main issue I have with religion, and in particular, the LDS religion and its adherents, is this insistence that THEY KNOW the mind and will of God, that they are his covenant people, special really and hold God's priesthood authority that nobody else does. If you think I act like the final arbiter on what people believe as well as what God is, says and does maybe some introspection on your own religion is in order. When I write about religious beliefs, I do not make absolute statements about the ultimate nature of reality -- whether God exists or not, and what sort of person he might be. However, you do traffic in such statements, as though you have all the final answers. It might be nicer of you to at least make accurate statements about LDS beliefs, rather than the completely prejudicial and inaccurate statements you do make. Quote I am aware of Rigdon's involvement with the Lectures on Faith. So what? Did he not have the priesthood, was in the FP, considered a prophet, seer and revelator? They Lectures were canonized and accepted. I know most LDS defenders want to dismiss and marginalize them clearly because they are problematic regarding the topic of what are God's charecters and attributes. And then there is that pesky Lecture 5. As for AG, sure the Church rejects it. I know the history and trail behind this as well. It does not speak well that apparently BY, who all LDS prophets trace their authority through today, preached heresy and apparently did not know who God was. Many people have the unfortunate habit of assuming the infallibility of prophets, now or in the past. For some reason, you have that same unfortunate habit. The same applies to assumptions about Scripture, as though it is one undifferentiated mass of absolute knowledge -- instead of being a human production subject to human limitations (D&C 1:24, II Ne 33:10). One expects that sort of fundamental mistake from evangelical Protestants, but never from actual LDS members. One has to ask why we see that error so frequently on this board. A good place to start a basic study of prophecy is in the Bible -- go methodically through the Bible, carefully studying the nature of each prophet. Then tell me what you have learned. Non-LDS scholars have actually done that.* In fact, in my first course on the subject in 1966 at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, my Jewish professor covered that very subject. It was an eye-opener. However, that knowledge does not come by pretending or by attending LDS Sunday School. One must come to grips with the hard data. Only then can one begin to understand the issues. * My first text on the subject was Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (1960). Edited June 1, 2021 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 3 hours ago, Teancum said: I think the conclusion is based on a lot more than bald assertion. Let me ask you. What of the Greek Gods? Were they not made in the image of man? Do you accept them as deity? If not why? The Bible and Homeric Epic have a great deal in common. The metaphysical claims in those works do not have to be taken seriously, and cannot be justified by science and logic, which leaves a great deal to be compared with archeology, including linguistics and literary analysis. Both Homer and the biblical authors talk about real places, times, and people, along with a lot of claims about gods and monsters. Science and logic deal very effectively with those actual people, times, and places, but not so much with the monsters. That you do not understand that elementary fact makes any discussion problematic. If you are thinking that Protestant or Catholic claims that the Resurrection is proven, or that claims that Moses and Abraham have been proven to exist are the same as LDS claims, there is little that can be done to help you figure out why that approach will always fail. Those sorts of claims have not been proven, and are always subject to faith/belief. Faith/belief is not the same as science/logic. Each involves completely separate methodologies. Metaphysical notions are not subject to science or logic. For answers to such questions, one must go to James 1:5-6, or Moroni 10:4-5. A testimony, which is non-trasnferrable, is obtained via the Holy Spirit. That is not the same as science and logic. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 27 minutes ago, ttribe said: Death is a natural consequence of life, not sin. 'Sin' is a concept which lies completely outside the "natural" plane; it's a behavioral construct, either created by humans or (as you prefer) a Deity. I don't agree. Sin and natural consequence go hand in hand. Whether you call it Karma, Cosmic Law, or whatever. Or just the lessons we learn by playing with fire. Quote One could live a perfectly 'sinless' existence and will inevitably die. No, we couldn't. That's WHY we inevitably die. Quote You are attempting to say that sin has consequences that are 'natural,' but have to rely upon non-observable phenomenon to do it. That is definition of 'natural law' which is inconsistent with its common use. Oh, I think the natural consequences of sin are more often than not very observable. 1
ttribe Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I don't agree. Sin and natural consequence go hand in hand. Whether you call it Karma, Cosmic Law, or whatever. Or just the lessons we learn by playing with fire. No, we couldn't. That's WHY we inevitably die. Oh, I think the natural consequences of sin are more often than not very observable. Again, 'sin' is a construct. It is not something that exists beyond creation either by us or a Deity. By definition, then, it is non-natural. Your entire view on this is informed by your belief in a god. Take that away, and it is absolutely obvious that 'sin' and its consequences have absolutely nothing to do with natural law. 1
Jamie Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Again, 'sin' is a construct. It is not something that exists beyond creation either by us or a Deity. By definition, then, it is non-natural. Your entire view on this is informed by your belief in a god. Take that away, and it is absolutely obvious that 'sin' and its consequences have absolutely nothing to do with natural law. Sin is generally understood to refer to something/anything that isn't good. So on one hand we have things we call good, because we believe those things are good, and on the other hand we have things we call sin, or evil, because we believe those things are bad or not good. You do the same thing, calling some things good because you believe they are good, while on the other hand the things you believe are not good are in the "other" category, whether you use the word sin or bad or evil or whatever other word you use to refer to things you believe are not good.
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ttribe said: Again, 'sin' is a construct. It is not something that exists beyond creation either by us or a Deity. By definition, then, it is non-natural. Your entire view on this is informed by your belief in a god. Take that away, and it is absolutely obvious that 'sin' and its consequences have absolutely nothing to do with natural law. Sin is not just a construct. There is more direct connection between violation of natural law and what God calls sin than you would like to think. Edited June 1, 2021 by JLHPROF
ttribe Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, Jamie said: Sin is generally understood to refer to something/anything that isn't good. So on one hand we have things we call good, because we believe those things are good, and on the other hand we have things we call sin, or evil, because we believe those things are bad or not good. You do the same thing, calling some things good because you believe they are good, while on the other hand the things you believe are not good are in the "other" category, whether you use the word sin or bad or evil or whatever other word you use to refer to things you believe are not good. That's not a generally accepted definition, either, but thanks for playing.
ttribe Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 Just now, JLHPROF said: Sin is not a construct. There is more direct connection between violation of natural law and what God calls sin than you would like to think. Oh? Then, by all means, explain it to me.
Recommended Posts