Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)
-
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2010
Wow, Christopher, I enjoyed reading your kind, intelligent and interesting post!
I will need to read the meat of your post some more times though, to make sure I understand you correctly. Therefore I won't make a full reply to that right now, but will for now just make some comments about some side-issues from the beginning and end of your post.
I agree with you about debate/discussion. I'm not the kind of person who cherry-picks a few easy bits out of long posts, and I agree that such a tactic has little to do with actual communication. I always try to address the main points, since communication is my primary goal. That said, my understanding- and communication skills aren't perfect, so I might misunderstand and I might sound ruder than I intend from time to time.
About your last paragraph, my goal is not simply to destroy faith. I do have several goals, and yes, I do find faith problematic and frequently harmful, and I'd like to live in a world where people rely more on empirical evidence. But that said, I also have a great sympathy for people's emotional need to have faith, even though the concept seems so foreign to me. Considering these two conflicting ideals, I hope you can see that saying that my goal is to destroy faith, would be to rather overstate and misrepresent what I'm trying to do.
I have the opinion that disagreement is essential to progress and increased enlightenment. When beliefs are never challenged their respective believers will tend to become more and more radical over time, and this is a sad fact about human nature. Many people hold beliefs strongly, that have never been subjected to any quality scrutiny, because they tend to shy away from criticism, or they communicate their beliefs primarily with people they already agree with. Challenges often lead people to do research, examine and possibly reevaluate their beliefs, and they come out stronger in the end. If they lose their faith and end up looking at life in a very different light, great!. If they end up more convinced that they are right than before, but also wiser, with a greater understanding of their own beliefs, great! If I end up wiser as well, even greater!
Btw, this approach also often leads me to disagree with other atheists. It leads me to disagree with people concerning politics, ethics, science, philosophy and anything else you can think of. If a belief has a poor foundation, I think it's essential to challenge it, and generally I believe good will come from it. These points, are the main reasons why I tend to seek out disagreement (christianforums, ghostvillage and stormfront are three boards I've frequented for this very reason).
Another reason worth mentioning is that I find these beliefs fascinating. I haven't been brought up in a religious environment, so these belief systems are incredibly foreign and bizarre to me. I'm fascinated by the psychological aspects, that can make people believe these things, and to try to understand what happens inside the minds of believers is a major, underlying goal for me. I'm also fascinated by other paranormal beliefs, and by conspirational beliefs and extreme political beliefs. Basically, any belief I find bizarre and irrational, that's my thing.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorchristopher
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2010
Peter, your post was most enlightening. I apologize for accusing you of attempting to destroy faith. You seem like a decent fellow. Understanding people's motives is crucial to communicating feelins effectively when parties disagree, so I really appreciate knowing where you come from. I enjoyed your post and look forward to continuing our discussion.
<--root beer....you know 'cuz...yeah. 
Chris -
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 13th 2010
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
-
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010 edited
Hi Chris. I hope you won't find me too argumentative, but I had some points I think were important to make, so the reply below will contain several rants about the various problems I see. I appreciate your great effort to explain your beliefs though, which I find interesting and enlightening, but that doesn't mean I'll hold back in my reply.
christopher wrote
Religion all comes down to faith, right? That’s a concept I have no doubt that you find dangerous.
Right.
Dangerous, sometimes. But I'm sure that some forms of faith can have little consequence. Generally I think that false beliefs, will lead to bad decision-making, and taking things on faith, i.e. to establish a strong belief in something for which there's lack of empirical evidence, is almost guarenteed to lead to false beliefs.
Humans aren't omniscient creatures, and as a consequence we can't simply figure the world out through our own intuition and guesswork. We need external observation, i.e. evidence. Humans are also fallible creatures, prone to misidentify, misinterpret, misremember, and draw false conclusions especially when strong beliefs are involved. Because of this, we shouldn't rely uncritically on our own observations, we need observations from others, and we need to evaluate them critically, preferentially repeat and test them, and come to shared tentative conclusions.
christopher wrote
I think it’s essential to understanding scripture.
There are 38.000 different christians denominations though, all convinced that they are the ones with the right interpretation of scripture, all using faith to convince themselves that they are the ones who are right. Of course there are and have existed thousands of other religions over time all equally convinced of their beliefs and their religious writings, each of them with countless interpretations and cults. I don't understand how someone can be aware of these facts, but still be convinced that faith is somehow reliable.
To me, these facts are the greatest possible lesson in humility. It shows clearly just how prone I, as a human being, am to be wrong and to deceive myself. Since I care about having as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, I continually have to question my own beliefs, be open to change them upon encountering conflicting evidence and valid arguments, and work against biases that might distort my view of the evidence and arguments. This is not easy. The easiest thing in the world, as a human being, is to simply go with the flow, and let your biases take control, believing whatever you like to believe.
christopher wrote
My faith in God is based on my own life experiences, so I don’t expect you to share it, but I do want you to know that I have felt things that convince me that there is a God, that He loves His children, and that He doesn’t do anything unless it is for their benefit.
I'm glad you understand that I can't expect to share your beliefs, since I haven't had your experiences, and I respect that. It's a point I sometimes have to explain to christians who can't understand why I don't believe what they do.
I think the religious feelings you report are interesting. I've heard former christians say that they, after their deconversion, have felt the same religious feelings during secular events, like rock concerts and other social gatherings, that they used to interpret as God or the Holy Spirit when they were christians. It's fascinating for sure, but I don't think strong feelings are reliable indicators of some external, unseen reality. To the contrary strong feelings are notorious for distorting people's perception of reality.
christopher wrote
Now, you’ve brought up a number of instances where the Bible talks about God killing people. I completely understand how you’re not okay with this. My faith in God leads me to believe that the God has perfectly good reasons for doing what He does, and sometimes my faith requires me to postpone judgment on one thing or another because I do not yet fully understand why God would do something like that (The story of Job is such a case. I have a hard time believing that it was simply God making a bet with Satan. I think there’s more to this, but until I know the rest of the story I’ll use it to learn about how to live a good life even when life is very hard, which I think is the point of the book). That said, I don’t worry about it, because I know God is good.
My issue with this is that religions often have several build-in mechanisms that make them impenetrable to conflicting evidence and arguments, and the "God works in mysterious ways" meme is one out of many examples. These mechanisms make sure that no matter what observations one makes, the belief will always be upheld or strengthened, and this applies independent of truth-value.
It reminds me of how alternative medicine works:
1.No change after taking the medicine -> "Give it time" or "You just need to take more medicine"
2.Feeling worse -> "That's the body getting rid of toxins" or "You just need to take more medicine"
3.Feeling better -> "Hallelujah! The medicine worked!"
Can you see how these mechanisms can enforce the false belief that the medicine is working, no matter what is actually observed? The mechanisms ensure that as soon as the belief system is adopted, there's no way to discern from within whether it is false.
christopher wrote
The preceding paragraph will seem to you FULL of naiveté, and I understand why. I hope that you will not think me closed-minded or a slave to my beliefs. My position is not based on thoughtlessness, but on the knowledge that I have of God’s goodness. I am sure of that, and so I know that someday He will teach me the answers. I will be patient until then.
I do think you seem openminded, intelligent and thoughtful, and I respect that you can see these issues from my point of view in some instances. But yes, many of the things you say do seem very strange to me. For instance when you used the word "knowledge" above. I'm sure you don't mean it as it comes across, but from my way of looking at the world it unfortunately sounds both arrogant and closeminded, when you state something you can't possibly know with such certitude. I want to make it clear though, that I'm not calling you an arrogant and closeminded person and I don't believe you are. I do think however that this particular way of thinking is problematic, and I hope you some day will reach a point where you will understand why I say that.
christopher wrote
That said, I do think there are good answers to many of the points you bring up. My perspective will be pretty different than most other Christians you’ve talked with, though. Mormons have a unique view of a lot of things, brought on by other scripture that we believe and by explanations given by modern men we believe to be prophets.
It's certainly interesting to get a mormon's take on things. I know very little about mormonism, but I must say I've heard some very peculiar things about it.
christopher wrote
I could give you my thoughts on a number of issues that you brought up, but I only want to do so if you’d like me to, because it would take a really long time to address everything you’ve brought up. If you’re interested, though, I could give you my take on the flood, how the New Testament came to be, Biblical slavery, the “genocide” of the Canaanites, Ancestral sin (which belief I do not find support for in the Bible, by the way), obscure commandments in the law of Moses, God sending “himself” down in the form of His son (I disagree with common Christian interpretation of the nature of God), the extent to which I believe the OT is “rather benign”, Mathew 5:17-19, and the ten commandments.
All interesting topics that I'd love to discuss in depth. We're in danger of way too long and timeconsuming posts though, so we should probably try to limit ourselves. That said, in connection to the current subject, the sacrifice of Jesus, I would like to hear about your opinion of ancestral sin and whether Jesus is God, a different god or not a god at all.
christopher wrote
I will address one of your points if I may. The doctrine of atonement is central to Christianity and one about which my feelings are particularly strong. I can understand that it is a ridiculous idea if you don’t believe in God, and I don’t blame you for asking why God would require it and not just forgive everyone without it.
For purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that there is a God, and that He is perfect (I know you don’t believe this, which is why you don’t believe in atonement, but I do believe in it, so here are some underlying assumptions that must be true for atonement to be possible and necessary). If God is perfect, then He must also be perfectly just, and perfectly merciful. Those are two attributes that contradict. If justice says that people get what they deserve and mercy says that they don’t, how can you have both in perfection? That’s where atonement comes in. Because all of us do wrong things, we become unworthy to live in God’s presence after we die (which He would really like us all to be able to do). Justice demands that a price be paid for every wrong act we commit. Let us say then, that when we sin, we take on a debt, and that God is our creditor. God, knowing that we would break eternal commandments, and not wanting us to have to suffer for that, created a plan whereby all of his children could pay that impossible debt and avoid the punishment for their own sins. He sent his son, Jesus, to earth to be a mediator. He would suffer the penalty for everyone else’s misdeeds, assuming our debts himself. As our new creditor, Jesus sets new terms for us to repay Him, that do not include the kind suffering that He had to experience for us. Now what he asks is that we repent. Is this arrangement fair? Technically yes, since Jesus did this willingly out of love for us. Clearly he was suffering for things he did not deserve, so that we can be punished less than we deserve, but this was the only way to have justice and mercy extended to us. If we don’t accept the price paid by Jesus and the new conditions of the debt we owe, then we will have to pay the price for our own sins in the afterlife. That’s how I see the atonement. I know that you will disagree with a lot of this, but does it make a little sense?
I'd like to say yes, as I applaud your effort. But I do have several issues and questions. If I've misunderstood anything you've said, please correct me.
The way you state it, I can see that being perfectly just and perfectly merciful at the same time would seem to contradict, though I'm not sure I agree. That said, even if I grant the dilemma, I don't think your proposed solution solves it. First of all, there's nothing just in punishing someone for sins he didn't commit, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The only just thing is to punish the ones who actually did the sinning. The idea of scapegoating is archaic and unjust, even if the scapegoat in question accepts his lot. Second of all, I also think there's a problem with perfect mercy in your scenario, because conditional mercy isn't perfect, just like conditional love wouldn't be perfect love.
I also wonder how you define 'sin'. If it simply means to disobey God, I don't see why it has all those unique properties. for instance the property that it can only be absolved through a divine blood sacrifice. Surely, if sin is merely a wrongdoing towards God, it doesn't have independent existence, but is a feeling or concept in God's mind, like a form of anger directed at people disobeying his laws. I often have this problem in debates with christians, because sin never seems to have a clear definition, but has shifting attributes that seem to depend on the point the christian is trying to make.
Another issue I have is that you say that we're not worthy to be in God's presence, even though he wants us to. My question is, according to whom are we not worthy? According to God? If so, you essentially saying that he simultaneously wants us to be in his presence and he doesn't want us to be in his presence, as he deems us unworthy.
A final but monumental problem showing the injustice of the whole setup is, that for one to realize that one has to repent and be forgiven, one has to be raised in an environment where the religious belief is promoted, since beliefs are primarily determined by geographic location. It depends on which parents and which friends you end up having. It depends on events and experiences out of your control. Had I been born in a christian family in America I'd almost certainly be a christian by now. So my everlasting torture has essentially been determined by being brought up without religious indoctrination in a non-religious environment.
Also, why would a perfect God communicate with us through texts that has been transcribed and translated numerous times, heavily influenced by various agendas? Texts written several decades after the purported events. Texts that the early christian sects slaughtered each other over, many of the writings consequently destroyed. What texts and doctrines we have today is the chance result of centuries of political and sectarian bickering and persecution. In addition, God didn't see fit to inspire any contemporary historians. The texts describe fantastic events, for instance dead people rising from their graves, that no one at the time seem to have thought important enough to write down. All these facts, and others, should clearly caution skepticism. But instead, God chooses to punish skeptics and instead reward people who uncritically ended up accepting the right religion by accident. I don't see any justice here, and certainly nothing that would indicate that this was orchestrated by a perfect god.
christopher wrote
You’re right that there is a relationships between the sacrifices offered in the Old Testament and Jesus’ atonement. I don’t think, though, that God delights in the smell of blood as you say. I think that scriptures that say that sacrifice produces a “sweet savor to God” are more symbolic. Sure cooking meat smells good (who doesn’t think that?), but here I think that God is more pleased with the act of sacrifice as something that points toward a great and last sacrifice. The purpose of sacrifice was to help humankind learn and think more about the sacrifice of Christ.
You're right about the smell of blood thing, as I had misremembered some verses. The sacrifices are rather bloody, but the smell thing does indeed refer to burnt offerings. I think I partly mixed it up with a NT verse that says that God liked the aroma of Jesus' sacrifice.
It could indeed be symbolic, and with modern eyes we pretty much have to label it symbolic, otherwise it would just seem absurd.
christopher wrote
True. Peter (the apostle) said that no scripture is of private interpretation, but everyone has their own interpretation of scripture. I believe that the true interpretation of the Bible was lost almost immediately after it was written. I think that the only way to know the intent of its authors is for modern day prophets and other books of scriptures to nail it down. Mormons believe that true original Christianity was lost with the deaths of the apostles and that it has been restored in the latter days.
Interesting.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010 edited
Holy crap. I think I just posted the longest post ever posted on MT.
You don't have to respond to all my points, Christopher, as it's a rather big mouthful. As long as you read them and try to understand my position, I'm happy.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorkeky
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
That's the longest post ever for sure! Congratulations!
I will get through it later - if I'll have the persistance... -
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
Hehe, thanks!
I should convince Bregt to have a 'longest MT posts' ranking in the community statistics area.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
The person who made this crucifix must be the most innocent person in history.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
Praise the lord.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
Jesus certainly was well HUNG on that cross!
Perhaps it's a sign his resERECTION is near?
Truly, his was a GLORY of biblical proportions...
Penis. -
- CommentAuthorLSH
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
Haha, that looks like a dick. -
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010
Steven wrote
Jesus certainly was well HUNG on that cross!
Perhaps it's a sign his resERECTION is near?
Truly, his was a GLORY of biblical proportions...
Brilliant!
I was trying to come up with some puns and jokes myself, but just couldn't think of any.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 16th 2010 edited
LSH wrote
Haha, that looks like a dick.
LOL!!11!!11 -
- CommentAuthorkeky
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2010
plindboe wrote
I think the religious feelings you report are interesting. I've heard former christians say that they, after their deconversion, have felt the same religious feelings during secular events, like rock concerts and other social gatherings, that they used to interpret as God or the Holy Spirit when they were christians. It's fascinating for sure, but I don't think strong feelings are reliable indicators of some external, unseen reality. To the contrary strong feelings are notorious for distorting people's perception of reality.
I just want to react to this point of yours: if these former christians said that meeting the divine was the same as they felt in a rock concert, etc. then I'm sure they had never experienced that true meeting with the divine.
Yes, the catharsis caused by music, or any piece of art can lift your soul - or mind, if you don't believe in the soul - it certainly can be similar to a religious experience but it's not the same.
The other thing is: it's not a feeling. Feelings come and go, it's much more than a feeling. But honestly, it's something that is very hard to talk about or describe. It must be experienced. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2010
Same with love, but that too is "just" a feeling. Nothing more, nothing less. -
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 18th 2010 edited
keky,
I understand that these experiences can be very powerful to the people experiencing them. I'd certainly love to experience something like that, as it would no doubt be a fascinating experience.
To be fair though, I don't think either of us can judge their experiences and compare them to yours. Whether it's the same, similar or completely different is impossible for anyone to know.
What I find most interesting though is that they used to interpret them as God or the Holy Spirit and they were used to validate the belief systems. It's fascinating how interpretations of experiences can differ so much depending on the beliefs that are in place.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorkeky
- CommentTimeApr 19th 2010
Steven wrote
Same with love, but that too is "just" a feeling. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, it's rather like when you are in a wonderful place (for example Grand Canyon). It's an experience that you can talk about, you can describe the view and what you felt but people won't understand completely what you are talking about unless they are there too. So I still say it's an experience, not a feeling. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeApr 19th 2010
I would disagree: anyone with a certain flair for words would certainly be able to convey his feelings in such a fashion that any listener with even a slight amount of empathy should be able to match them against a personal one, which in fact is more powerful than actually sharing the experience.
After all, even a shared experience may (and more often than not will ) evoke very different emotional responses due to the uniqueness of everyone's psychological and emotional make-up. To keep with the example, I've heard the (rather disappointed) comment about the Grand Canyon that it was "smaller than they'd imagined" (God knows what they were expecting then...).
However, if you'd be able to bring under words what that vista did to you, the party who didn't per se appreciate the very same experience might relate it to some peak experience of their own.
That very experience might not mean anything to you ("Yeah, I had that same overwhelming feeling of awe and inescapable natural majesty when I watched the epic 2012!"), but the emotion surely would. And that would be the level you connect upon.
So I not only agree with Steven it IS a feeling, I would argue that that feeling outweighs the importance of the experience a thousandfold.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 20th 2010
Natural human behavior causes earthquakes!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 631775.stm
"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes"
"What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes"
Isn't Islam just wonderful? -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 20th 2010
Steven wrote
Natural human behavior causes earthquakes!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 631775.stm
"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes"
"What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes"
Isn't Islam just wonderful?
Cocks.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 20th 2010
The OT has plenty of examples where God uses natural disasters to punish or exterminate groups of people for their sins, so it isn't surprising that these ways of thinking exist among many followers of the abrahamic religions.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2010 edited
Recent South Park "controversy" sparks Islamic death threats:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm
Here's to Trey Parker and Matt Stone:
Here's to Muslims: :Muhammad: -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 23rd 2010
^
That!On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeApr 23rd 2010
Hahah, that episode was hilarious. Especially when he was replying "mm, ok" from inside the van in light, scared and fragile little voice.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorchristopher
- CommentTimeApr 23rd 2010
Peter, you’re so intelligent and your points are logical and many of them have made me think a lot. Your points about justice and mercy in particular were very reasonable and I must admit that I’m going to have to think more critically about justice and mercy. I have responded to your points the best that I now can, but I think there are better answers for you on some of these questions that I am just unable to give you at this point. Here’s my best shot, though.
plindboe wrote
false beliefs, will lead to bad decision-making, and taking things on faith, i.e. to establish a strong belief in something for which there's lack of empirical evidence, is almost guarenteed to lead to false beliefs.
Here we would agree on one thing. Truth (things as they really are) should be sought out and embraced. I believe that there are many truths that can be learned through scientific method, but I believe there are some truths that can only be discerned through faith. I do agree, though, that faith in something untrue will lead to false beliefs and bad decision making, which is why I must be very sure of what I choose to believe.
plindboe wrote
Humans aren't omniscient creatures, and as a consequence we can't simply figure the world out through our own intuition and guesswork. We need external observation, i.e. evidence….we shouldn't rely uncritically on our own observations, we need observations from others, and we need to evaluate them critically, preferentially repeat and test them, and come to shared tentative conclusions.
Agreed. Interestingly, Paul defined faith as the “evidence of things not seen.” He also said to “try [meaning test] all things.” He apparently felt that one should not believe anything blindly, but by faith, should obtain some evidence of the veracity of any doctrine or teaching. This is how I feel.
plindboe wrote
There are 38.000 different christians denominations though, all convinced that they are the ones with the right interpretation of scripture, all using faith to convince themselves that they are the ones who are right. Of course there are and have existed thousands of other religions over time all equally convinced of their beliefs and their religious writings, each of them with countless interpretations and cults. I don't understand how someone can be aware of these facts, but still be convinced that faith is somehow reliable.
Excellent points. I don’t trouble myself with this fact, but use it as evidence for my own religion’s claims. We believe there was an apostasy from the truth shortly after the deaths of the apostles and that mankind’s own attempts to interpret scripture on their own without prophets or apostles to lead them and without the Holy Spirit resulted in countless factions of believers who all had remnants of the former truth, but who disagreed with everyone else on something and so claimed to have greater truth than all others. So I guess the question is whether there is such a thing as “one true faith” at all. If there is, I’m unaware of many religions other than mine that have a good explanation as to why they should understand scripture better than everyone else.
plindboe wrote
To me, these facts are the greatest possible lesson in humility. It shows clearly just how prone I, as a human being, am to be wrong and to deceive myself. Since I care about having as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, I continually have to question my own beliefs, be open to change them upon encountering conflicting evidence and valid arguments, and work against biases that might distort my view of the evidence and arguments. This is not easy. The easiest thing in the world, as a human being, is to simply go with the flow, and let your biases take control, believing whatever you like to believe.
True, all true. If my religion is really what it says it is, then there should be an answer to every criticism, every challenge. It becomes my job then not to ignore those, but to put my religion to the test, so to speak, and critically think about my beliefs.
plindboe wrote
I think the religious feelings you report are interesting. I've heard former christians say that they, after their deconversion, have felt the same religious feelings during secular events, like rock concerts and other social gatherings, that they used to interpret as God or the Holy Spirit when they were christians. It's fascinating for sure, but I don't think strong feelings are reliable indicators of some external, unseen reality. To the contrary strong feelings are notorious for distorting people's perception of reality.
I can’t speak for the feelings that others say they’ve had. But the Spirit I’ve felt was like nothing at a rock concert or other social gathering. You say that spiritual experiences are simply feelings produced by things around us (or maybe even ourselves). Even I, believing in the Holy Ghost as I do, admit that because the Spirit communicates in ways that are felt, it can be very easy sometimes to confuse feelings that anyone could feel with divine communication. I am actually a religious educator by profession, and I am constantly trying to make sure that my methods for teaching the gospel to my students are not emotionally manipulative. I think that many experiences that people think of as spiritual boil down to simply emotion, but there are feelings that come from outside oneself that I have experienced, and the more experience I have with things like that, the easier it becomes to realize when a feeling, impression, or insight is coming from a divine source quite outside of me, rather than a simple emotion brought on by temporal stimuli.
plindboe wrote
My issue with this is that religions often have several build-in mechanisms that make them impenetrable to conflicting evidence and arguments, and the "God works in mysterious ways" meme is one out of many examples. These mechanisms make sure that no matter what observations one makes, the belief will always be upheld or strengthened, and this applies independent of truth-value.
I can’t say much about that. I can see your point.
plindboe wrote
For instance when you used the word "knowledge" above. I'm sure you don't mean it as it comes across, but from my way of looking at the world it unfortunately sounds both arrogant and closeminded, when you state something you can't possibly know with such certitude. I want to make it clear though, that I'm not calling you an arrogant and closeminded person and I don't believe you are. I do think however that this particular way of thinking is problematic, and I hope you some day will reach a point where you will understand why I say that.
I do understand why you say that. It must sound crazy to see someone saying that they “know” something about God. I can see why you think that sounds arrogant. In saying that, I’m really not trying to put myself on a pedestal or anything. But I do think knowledge is the right word. I believe that you can come to know things are true. In fact, at the end of the Book of Mormon there’s even an invitation to the reader to come to know for themselves that it is true. The author writes, “when ye shall receive these things…ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:4-5).
plindboe wrote
I know very little about mormonism, but I must say I've heard some very peculiar things about it.
I’m sure you have. You’ll think we’re peculiar even if you know how we really are But the stuff that some people say about us that isn’t true is even weirder than the stuff that is true. By the way, we don’t live like the Amish, have long beards, practice polygamy, have horns, or shoot dead bodies out of cannons straight to hell through subterranean tunnels. Yes, I’ve actually heard that one.
plindboe wrote
I would like to hear about your opinion of ancestral sin and whether Jesus is God, a different god or not a god at all.
I’d love to share that. I’ll wait for another post, though, as this one is shaping up to be a whopper.
plindboe wrote
The way you state it, I can see that being perfectly just and perfectly merciful at the same time would seem to contradict, though I'm not sure I agree. That said, even if I grant the dilemma, I don't think your proposed solution solves it. First of all, there's nothing just in punishing someone for sins he didn't commit, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The only just thing is to punish the ones who actually did the sinning. The idea of scapegoating is archaic and unjust, even if the scapegoat in question accepts his lot.
Here we must agree to disagree. Going back to my previous analogy, if a creditor demands payment else the debtor go to prison, it is just for a third party to voluntarily assume the debt. Did he have to? No. But he wanted to. That is just, in my opinion, though if you disagree I can understand that.
plindboe wrote
Second of all, I also think there's a problem with perfect mercy in your scenario, because conditional mercy isn't perfect, just like conditional love wouldn't be perfect love.
Excellent point. You’ve really made me think. As I said above, I think there is a better answer to this, but here’s the best I can do: If Jesus’ mercy was offered without condition, how would that be just? By offering salvation free and clear to everyone, God would essentially be forcing everyone to go to heaven, but that is something he will never do. Mercy is extended through Christ’s atonement, but you must choose to accept it (by repenting and trying to live the gospel that he taught). Unconditional mercy wouldn’t be fair, but God is both fair and merciful.
plindboe wrote
I also wonder how you define 'sin'…if sin is merely a wrongdoing towards God, it doesn't have independent existence, but is a feeling or concept in God's mind, like a form of anger directed at people disobeying his laws. I often have this problem in debates with christians, because sin never seems to have a clear definition, but has shifting attributes that seem to depend on the point the christian is trying to make.
Interesting. I think some sins violate universal morals. I think there are some things that always wrong – not because God has decreed them so, just because they are wrong (murder, adultery, lying). Knowing the naturally terrible causes that such things have, God has commanded us not to do them, protecting us. Other sins are wrong not because of any universal truth but only because God has commanded them (keeping the Sabbath holy, perhaps). So sin is either something that is inherently wrong that God has commanded us not to do for our own protection, or something that is not inherently wrong, but prohibited by God in order to teach us or benefit us in some way.
To commit sin you either know what God has commanded and then not do it (omission), or know what God has commanded you not to do, and then do it (commission). Prerequisites to sinning include agency and accountability (small children for example, not comprehending right from wrong, can’t be held accountable for things that would be a sin for an older child or adult). That’s kind of how I think about sin.
plindboe wrote
Another issue I have is that you say that we're not worthy to be in God's presence, even though he wants us to. My question is, according to whom are we not worthy? According to God? If so, you essentially saying that he simultaneously wants us to be in his presence and he doesn't want us to be in his presence, as he deems us unworthy.
Good point. I believe in universal truths that exist independent of God. I think that rather than arbitrarily coming up with them Himself and then spitefully punishing those that can’t live up to his lofty standards, I believe that God operates within the bounds of these truths and does everything He can to help us to choose to accept those truths and live in such a way that we will eventually become like Him. I believe that God has prepared other places (and not just a hell) for his children that accept and live truth to different degrees. Paul talks about these different degrees in 1 Cor. 15.
plindboe wrote
A final but monumental problem showing the injustice of the whole setup is, that for one to realize that one has to repent and be forgiven, one has to be raised in an environment where the religious belief is promoted, since beliefs are primarily determined by geographic location. It depends on which parents and which friends you end up having. It depends on events and experiences out of your control. Had I been born in a christian family in America I'd almost certainly be a christian by now. So my everlasting torture has essentially been determined by being brought up without religious indoctrination in a non-religious environment.
Excellent point. LDS theology is different than others in that we believe that God will give equal opportunity to all of his children – if not in this life, then in the next – to accept the gospel and repent. It would be supremely unfair for God to condemn someone in China, for example, to eternal separation from His presence simply because that person never heard about Jesus during his lifetime. I believe that God will judge us on how well will lived with the knowledge we had, how we would have reacted to additional knowledge, and what our desires were. That the gospel is preached to the dead is clearly taught by Peter in 1 Pet 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6.
plindboe wrote
Also, why would a perfect God communicate with us through texts that has been transcribed and translated numerous times, heavily influenced by various agendas? Texts written several decades after the purported events. Texts that the early christian sects slaughtered each other over, many of the writings consequently destroyed. What texts and doctrines we have today is the chance result of centuries of political and sectarian bickering and persecution. In addition, God didn't see fit to inspire any contemporary historians. The texts describe fantastic events, for instance dead people rising from their graves, that no one at the time seem to have thought important enough to write down. All these facts, and others, should clearly caution skepticism. But instead, God chooses to punish skeptics and instead reward people who uncritically ended up accepting the right religion by accident. I don't see any justice here, and certainly nothing that would indicate that this was orchestrated by a perfect god.
I don’t think the Bible is quite as haphazardly constructed as you think it is. I was reading a book called “How the New Testament Came to Be” that is a collection of presentations at a university symposium on the subject. It seems that of the thousands of copies of the books of our current New Testament that can be dated back to the first couple of centuries, there is not much difference from one copy to the next about what was originally recorded by Mathew, or James, or whoever.
You bring up some good points, though, which those who believe the Bible to be inerrant should consider. The books appearing in the Bible were chosen by men, with some left out and some of dubious origin included. And there are (mostly small) differences in different ancient copies of scriptural books. This is another point that Mormons make frequently. We believe that God has revealed to modern prophets what parts of the Bible were changed from what they were originally. As to why other contemporaries did not record similar things, I don’t really know. Perhaps they did and their records were lost simply because they never held the title “apostle.” Or perhaps they did and their book was not chosen for inclusion in the Bible. Or perhaps there are ancient records contemporary with the Bible of other groups who experienced the same kinds of things – like the Book of Mormon!
plindboe wrote
I think I partly mixed it up with a NT verse that says that God liked the aroma of Jesus' sacrifice.
Do you know what verse that is? I’m unfamiliar with it.
By the way, your English is impeccable. Aren't you Dutch or something? English isn't your first language is it?
Chris
-
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 24th 2010
Chris,
thank you for another nice and interesting post and for your very kind compliments. I'm very glad that my comments have made you think as that is my primary goal, and I'm sure it will only leave you stronger in the end.
I'm happy to hear your comment about my English. It's indeed my second language, as I'm from Denmark. It has improved over the years, primarily through online debate. But since getting an english girlfriend, who points out whenever I make a grammatical error, I've realized I still have alot to learn.
The verse about the sweet aroma of Jesus' sacrifice is in Ephesians 5:2. Btw, I'm curious, what Bible translation are you using?
I will make a post addressing the meat of our discussion at a later point, as I like to have some days to mull it over, and considering the lengths of our posts, it's hard work, though also enjoyable and rewarding.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorchristopher
- CommentTimeApr 24th 2010
I use the King James version, but one with a whole lot of Hebrew and Greek alternate translation footnotes in it.
Yeah, I think that Ephesians 5:2 isn't to be taken literally, but to compare Christ's death with the sacrifices of the old testament. Just my two cents...
Take your time replying. These posts are rather lengthy
-
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeApr 25th 2010
christopher wrote
I use the King James version, but one with a whole lot of Hebrew and Greek alternate translation footnotes in it.
Ah, nice. I must get me one of those.
christopher wrote
Yeah, I think that Ephesians 5:2 isn't to be taken literally, but to compare Christ's death with the sacrifices of the old testament. Just my two cents...
Good point, that does indeed sound reasonable.
christopher wrote
Take your time replying. These posts are rather lengthy
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 25th 2010
