DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
What benefits are there to "not" living my life exercising faith?
Is there, from your perspective, ideas or view that I am blind to that you see could round out my existence -- based upon what I've said?
I can tell you that even if there is no God and simply nothingness after we die, I feel that my life is fullfilling on its own merit and I am grateful to be in existance even if it is for a limited time. In some ways, I feel that makes our existence even more meaningful and special if this life is the only shot we have at experiencing something, anything. Then again, I never expected a happy ending to this life and I have never been promised that I will live happily ever after for all eternity with my family and loved ones. If I had that expectation from the beginning, I would be crushed if I ever found out it was not true.
I can't tell you that there is any benefit to "not" living your life with faith, in fact there would probably be considerable downsides to it. Whether or not the church is true, I can't deny that it has done a lot of good for a lot of people and truthfully I would be incredibly sad if you told me tomorrow that you no longer believed the church is true because of me. I'm not here to change any minds, only expand thought and perspective :)
-
The devil wears blue jeans!
I wear blue jeans... Oh no, I must be the devil!
-
Challenging the mind is a good thing. Brains need exercise too you know :)
-
I don't know why you haven't gotten an answer. My first guess is that God wants more of you before he grants it. I can't know the specifics of your particular trial of faith. I just know that God requires them. Your experience has been different than mine and your needs different as well. Keep in mind that God has a bigger agenda than just giving you an answer to a question. And with answers come trust and responsibility. Perhaps you want the answer, but are unprepared to follow thru. Perhaps you have not finished your preparations. Perhaps your faith is in its infancy and God is still growing it up in you. He may be preparing you and you have yet to get to the plateau where you can see the trail behind you and where you have come. Perhaps God is saying "walk a little further.....no you are not quite there yet....keep going....yes its dark.....". ANd Perhaps he is simply waiting on you.
Ether 12 :6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
DS. Give the D&C a shot. If you read all of that and the BofM too and you still don't feel that it is anything but a production of culture, then fine. But don't dismiss it quite yet. Don't be like my kids who refuse to try the apple pie and argue that it isn't palettable because the edges of the crust are brown!
I will give the BoM a chance, but I would like you to really think about what I have said as well.
-
If the shoe fits!!!!By all means, commence with the witch hunt then :)
-
Well, neither is taking all scientific findings and believing them on face value!
I'm not talking about blindly believing findings that are presented. I am talking about reproducable results that implicate conclusions that can be independently reached by other experiments. Compared to hearing something and praying about it, I don't see how there can be any question which is more accurate. People pray every day and come up with conflicting answers that conflict with other people's answers, there is no religious consensus that can be reached independently or even be reproduced.
I must disagree this point because it is contrary to my experience. How many times the answers to my prayers have been "NO". How many times have I prayed only to discover that the light and truth coming to me was really hard truths about my weakness? Even to the point of being chastised ! I do believe that the scenerio you describe does in fact happen. But, those aren't the kind of testimonies that go the distance or withstand the long haul. Those are the kind that are blown about by every wind of doctrine.
The mind is very complex and we are not consciously aware of all its inner workings. You may pray about things which you have already made an unconscious decision on. You may pray about things that you know are wrong but your conscious mind is trying to justify are right, in which case the answer would be a resounding "NO". I don't see how that changes anything about my theory. If you truly want to believe something deep down and maybe even have been told it is true your whole life, I can see how it could create a strong testimony in someone whether it is true or not. How else do you explain that there are extrmely faithful people in every religion.
Agency and flattery......Human nature...... Self gratification..... Believing lies....... etc. Don't we want certain things to be true sometimes? Don't we fight for them? Don't we lie to ourselves and deny parts of our awareness because facing truth might cost us our pride or our comfort? Truth is truth whether we believe it or see it or not. And that truth will manifest itself regardless of what we profess or delude ourselves into seeing. There is also a Satan....the father of all lies....and his main goal is to deceive the children of men. He is pretty good at what he does.
Arguing with yourself about desires you have that go against what you have been taught is right is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the truly faithful of other faiths that KNOW they have it right and maybe even are willing to die for that truth. Why doesn't the truth manifest for them? Are they all being misled by Satan? If so he must be much better at this than God since only a tiny minority of people in the world believe the same way that you do.
It isn't a bias.....it is a test! When I pray, I don't put words in God's mouth. Well....at least I don't have to. :) Look, Faith is being willing to try the test.....to allow the vulnerability of asking the question. Part of faith too is doing part of the work ourselves. You have to follow the recipe to get the cake! And you may have to practice the recipe and tweak the ingredients to get a really tasty cake! It is the same here. You can't cheat or stay in the safety of the surface when dealing with spiritual truths. A person can lie to themselves....and some often do.....about having tried and failed. But I know, cuz I have gone that deep! And I don't know anyone who has gone that deep that hasn't come away with truth. There is no unavoidable bias when you have done the work....the preparations and prerequisites. It is only a test to see if these preparations do in fact have the promised result. The invention of the lightbulb is the perfect example. He discovered first 354 ways NOT to make a lightbulb....and then finally he discovered TRUTH in principle and practice!
I have asked the question to God in all honesty, and gotten nothing in return. People suggest that I am not getting an answer because I don't have enough faith. I am suggesting that maybe other people get an answer because they have too much faith. I know many people who have questioned their faith and come back 'knowing' the truth and that their faith was justified, and not all of them are LDS.
If there were truly no bias, why would it matter how you were raised? Why is it that from my experience, at least 80% of people are simply whatever religion they were raised in? Why wouldn't people gravitate toward the one true religion if prayers did more than just reinforce what you deep down wanted to be true?
I have no doubt that if someone was raised to praise the Great Cabbage, sheltered from all other religions, and told they can pray with faith and KNOW that the Great Cabbage exists and love them, they would defend their faith with the same conviction, and follow the teachings of the Great Cabbage.
People find truth in the world and they follow it. Sometimes they don't follow the light.... and we have discussed why. I can't control those people. I can't make them do the right or the true thing! I can only control myself and own my responsibility to be true to the truth I find. Is there a God? DS, I can't deny that there isn't! Do you understand that? I haven't seen Him. I don't know his face.....but I know His influence in my life! I KNOW it. I don't just intellectually accept it or make such statements as an educated guess. I don't believe it because anybody else does!!! I would believe it if I were the only person. Because in the end it is about me and God and nobody else!!!
The problem I have is that what you find as truth through subjective means seems HIGHLY dependent on your environment. Are you telling me that if you were raised in Uzkrapistan as a goat hearder with no knowledge of Gospel you would have come to the same truth?
-
But I don't think it is beyond Satan to play these kind of games and and influence the participants. I have a hard time believing in the "innocence" of such activities.
And I think it's a slippery slope to start blaming things on Satan :)
-
but I can't deny that this guy feels more 'evil'-ish than most in the field.
All part of the performance.
-
I think you more you look into the LDS faith, the more you will understand that we believe this too.
That is the beauty of prayer and obedience.....and the very point of our message and invitation!! The truths in the universe can and should be verified independently.
Hearing about something and then faithfully praying to 'know' it is true is not verifying it independently, it is simply confirming something that you really want to be true. There are many other instances where people confirm what they want to be true when there is no basis in reality.
This is an interesting observation. I have seen the same thing. Look truth is truth whether it is found in religion A or church B. There is truth....all varieties of truth....to be found thru out this earth. There are also errors. One truth here taken and twisted. Another truth here, absolutely accurate and showing the fruit. Just like your PS. that analogy doesn't work because it isn't true. All faith, in order for it to produce the desired result, my be based in true principles. Following or producing a particular dogma because it is popular or to get gain or because it is comfortable will all be unsatisfying in the end because of the lack of truth or the lack of properly applied faith.
How do you explain people who have faith in things that are not true and still get their desired result?
The question for all LDS people is always "Is it true?" Is there in fact a God? Did that God speak to Joseph? ..... and that trickles down to believing prophets and continuous revelation and following that revelation because of the truth of the source! It really isn't about denomination from this perspective. It is about truth... and then the path that this truth leads us to.
How can you ask "Is it true?" while having faith? If you are trying to determine whether something is true but already have faith that it is true (like many people recomend to me), then you are introducing an unaviodable bias. How can the results be trusted? How do you know you aren't one of the billions of other people that feel their religion is right?
-
I think that many people are confusing murder with ending someone else's life. Neither is to be taken lightly, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Sometimes the difference is small, but there is a difference. If you wish to talk about the difference between Nephi and homicide bombers, we can do that. But since DS does not believe that faith is of value, I don't think that any understanding will be made.
I could say that cars are dangerous machines. It is true, but I still drive to work every day. When I say that faith is dangerous, that does not mean I believe it holds no value. Nephi had angels appear in front of him which other people saw and acknowledged as well, I highly doubt many suicide bombers had such profound concrete examples to back their faith. I do see the difference.
-
I apologize if my thread offended you. I never meant to 'bad mouth' God in any way, or imply that God (should He exist) would tell people to unjustly murder others. I asked the question because I wanted to know how far people are willing to take their faith, not because I thought it was a realistic scenario. To me, the question is relevant because we condemn people halfway around the world who are killing in the name of God and have faith that it is the 'just' course of action. From the responses to my question, I am reassured that most people would not take their faith to such an extreme, but I still think that faith is a dangerous concept.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
-
You personally believe people were commanded by God to be modest. They most likely do not. Does that make them immoral simply because they don't share your exact view of morality? Have you considered that maybe they are being themselves which doesn't include your view of the importance of modesty? You want people to be themselves, but you also want them all to conform to your views, am I the only one that sees a paradox in this?
-
Chris Angel is a performer. He makes a living by tricking people who know they are being tricked but can't figure out how. He happens to be very good at it, but calling his illusions supernatural power because you can't immediately see how they are done is just silly.
He hasn't made any deal with the devil, he is just a performer who is good at his job. No need to bring out the torches and prepare the stake.
-
The struggle for the agnostic or atheist, is this seems a subjective issue, as it is not a thing we can easily recreate in a lab. God will show himself to whomever he will, and so we could all take turns going to the grove of trees in Palmyra, New York, and chances are most, if not all of us would not see the Father and Son.
However, what you consider subjective is, for me, very objective, after seeing and experiencing the many things I have. It is not a matter of not being able to replicate experiences/experiments and getting similar results; it is a matter of an individual handling very complex and delicate equipment in the correct way. You could place me in front of an electron microscope, and it would be a miracle for me to figure out how to see a subatomic particle through it. Yet, certain people succeed at doing this all the time. Does this make using the microscope a subjective thing? Or does it mean that there is lots of preparation and training that has to be done in order to be able to properly use the equipment? I think the latter is the case.
If you had my spiritual experiences, you would not think them to be subjective. But it has taken many years of learning to work the spiritual equipment in order to make it objectively useable in my life.
To me, the major difference is that with science and objective data, people can independently come to the same conclusions without any contact from one another. The same can not be said for religion though. If people are never told about the Gospel, they will never independently come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a prophet and Gospel has been restored.
When I talk to religious people they say that in order to receive these reaffirming spiritual experiences, you must believe and have faith in their Gospel. But by doing that you are essentially telling your mind to look for confirmation that this is true, rather than try to determine whether it is true. If you believe anything strongly enough, your mind will look for evidence to confirm it and ignore the rest. That is why people who strongly believe a place is haunted will come back with incidents confirming just how haunted the place is, even if you just made up the story that it was haunted. To me, this explains why there are multiple religions which are successful and have faithful followers.
I find that principles which are true, can generally be independently verified and don't require closing your mind off to other possibilities.
P.S. It would be a miracle for anyone to see a subatomic particle with an electron microscope, since they don't even come close to being able to see them :)
-
Ok. That actually really helps me understand you. So, when do you value subjective experience to the point of relying on it for feedback about the world? and is there ever a time when subjective experience trumps the objective?
There aren't any times that I can think of offhand.
-
How do you reconcile the fact that you discount all subjective experience and still maintain that you haven't closed your mind? To me, it is closing your mind to the other dynamic half of what it means to be human.
I don't discount all of the subjective experience. I was only noting that conclusions based exclusively on subjective experience are demonstratably less reliable than conclusions based on objective experience. I never claimed that it was worthless all together.
I would also like to emphasize that I don't take ANYTHING for absolute truth, whether it comes from objective or subjective.
-
The problem with atheism is the hubris it suggests. That one can affirmatively announce and insist that there is no God at all, when one cannot know the extent of the universe, is an amazing thing. It is even more astounding for me to think of the hubris of those atheists, who seek to impose their "lack of belief" system on others.
The same hubris goes for theists. That one can affirmatively announce that there is a God and that their particular sect has exclusive knowledge from Him and all other people who think they know God are wrong is amazing to me. It is even more astounding to think of the hubris of those theists who seek to impose their "God" on to others.
Agnosticism, OTOH, is a genuine belief system. One cannot be certain of what one has never seen nor experienced. Almost every believer of God has been agnostic at one point or another, as we all have doubts as to whether this is all real or imagined. Only faith and hope allows us to overcome the doubtful feelings and struggles that Ms Halfway expressed.
Some people are perfectly ok with simply not knowing.
Now, be assured that some who call themselves atheist are actually agnostic. I would place Elphaba more in the agnostic than atheistic realm. Why? Because she keeps an open mind. Whereas, some atheists have stated that if evidence of God were to appear, they would happy to see that evidence destroyed/removed (I believe Francis Crick once stated something to this effect).
The word atheist has been somewhat redifined by theists. It is true though that few people deny the existance of God with the same conviction and close-mindedness that theists believe the existance of God. Most people who refer to themselves as atheists, simply don't believe in God, not dogmatically deny the existance of God like many seem to think the word implies.
I would state that if I were to ever reject Mormonism, I'd have to reject all of Christianity and the other Biblical sects (Judaism, Islam, etc)., as being false, as well. The problems some insist are in Mormonism can also be found in the Judaeo-Christian faiths, as well. I would invariably be an agnostic, keeping an open mind that there might be a god, but not knowing if that god were moral or amoral; loving or hating or indifferent; anthropomorphic, material or immaterial; aware or unaware; etc. I would not feel any more guilty over living a wild lifestyle as an agnostic as I would as an atheist; as morality is primarily tied to the Christian/Jewish/Islamic Gods.
(bolding was mine)
Look at my other thread about morality. I won't rehash it all here, but there are many ways of coming to a reasonable moral Code that don't involve religion at all. I really find it annoying when people act like Abrahamic religions have some type of patent on simple moral concepts that any culture would need to not fall apart right away.
-
Technically the word atheist is simply the 'a' prefix which in this case meaning not, applied to the word theist which refers to a person who believes in God or Gods. So in that sense, yes, I am an atheist, I don't firmly believe in a God or Gods. Since non-believers tend to be not very well liked by believers, the word 'atheist' has picked up a lot of negative connotations along the way and has come to mean, in many people's minds at least, one who believes God does not exist with the same conviction that theists believe God does exist.
To avoid confusion and having stones thrown at me, I usually refer to myself as 'agnostic' because the term applies as well and is better understood. I believe that it is not possible to know for a fact whether there is a God or isn't because it relies entirely on the subjective experience and feelings which can and often do lead people astray. If I had to guess, I would say that God (as any of the current religions portray Him) does not exist. I say that because I have found no compelling objective evidence that He does exist, but I do not have the arrogance to say that I know for sure and that I have closed my mind to all other possibilities.
For me, that is where the conflict with religion comes in. It goes against my nature to believe that anything is unquestionably true, especially when based almost entirely on warm fuzzy feelings and subjective experiences.
-
Stop putting holes in my logic. I know EVERYTHING!
Yeah, I'll concede the point. But isn't it great that there are no perfect analogies, and that some analogies are better suited to certain situations than others?
I'm not trying to nitpick (though I know I have a tendency to do that), I was just making the point that there is a significant difference between everyday 'faith' and religious faith and it is not trivial to make the jump between them :)
-
It is a question one might give a quick YES or NO to, without much thought... much like the overzealous missionary.
His companion kind of looked at him strangely after that and I got the feeling that he did not share quite the same zeal.
-
I do have a connection for you there. If you do not understand the finer details of internal combustion (and neither do I for the record, so I'll continue in the first person plural), we are indeed driving our cars in an act of faith. However, our faith has been reinforced by experience; namely, most of the time, when we hop in our cars and turn the keys and drive off, it works for us.
Faith in God works much the same way. By having experiences that we cannot fully explain, we develop our faith into a kind of working knowledge--we've come to expect certain things because of the past experiences we've had. Just like, after time, because of our faith we expect the car to work.
Phase two of the analogy: what happens when the car fails to work? If it were to happen the first time we ever experienced a car, we'd probably abandon the idea entirely. But, since we have more experience with them working, when they don't work, we assume something in the vehicle has changed. We also learn this from seeing other people's cars break down, but someone with more knowledge is able to repair it. These experiences are why our entire faith system in cars doesn't come crashing down around us when one doesn't work.
The parallel: Sometimes, even when we have faith, something happens in our lives that is contrary to the results we expected under our system of faith. It could be an illness, a job loss, your arch enemy called as bishop, or a crazy girlfriend. But because our faith tells us what to expect most of the time, when these trials arise, we can assume that something in the system is different. We can rely on other with more knowledge and/or experience to help us understand these things, or we can just trust that those people do understand them and let them handle them (Stake Presidents, Bishops, etc).
The analogy deviates from car in that with faith, the change in the system is sometimes in us and needs modification. You can try to tie up the loose ends on your own if you like. But I think the gist of what I'm saying holds, even if the details don't line up exactly.
I guess there are more parallels than I originally thought, thanks for the insight :). I do think there is a major difference between the two that you are missing though. If you drive your car to work, you know that it worked and was in fact the car that did something that would not have happened otherwise. If you pray and demonstrate religious faith, there is no way to know that the results of that would not have happened otherwise and you are left trying to sort out your own confirmation bias.
I think that there is a fundemantal difference between having faith that your car will take you to work and having faith that God did something for you that would not have happened in the first place. There are similarities, but the difference between them is a big one.
-
I honestly don't believe he would ever command me to. Laban had to go so an entire nation would not dwindle in unbelief. These days, there is no one person with the power to make that happen.
Now days, with weapons available one person could conceivably kill thousands or even start a war killing hundreds of thousands. I would argue that even more can be damage can be caused by just one person these days.
-
Why on earth would God command such a thing?
Why on earth has He done so in the past? I'm not suggesting that this is on a whim or that there is no perceived reason behind it.
-
I asked this question to an overzealous missionary a few months ago and without hesitation he responded 'Yes'. Another thread got me thinking about this again, and since I don't want to derail that thread I will start one of my own. I ask this question in all seriousness, and I don't want to hear answers like "Well he never would so it doesn't matter" because if the scriptures are true, he already has asked people to kill on multiple occasions and could very well again.
If you answer no, why not? Is your faith not strong enough to obey a commandment from God?
If you answer yes, how can you condemn other people who kill in God's name (most notably, the majority of terrorists)? You could justify it by saying "It's ok, because my God really exists", but that could be exactly what they are thinking as well.
This is not meant to be offensive, but to me it is a paradox of faith and morality which I ultimately resolved (personally) by concluding the religious faith is not a good thing for humanity. I know that nearly everyone here disagrees, which is why I am posing the question to you and want feedback. All thoughts are welcome even if you don't want to answer.
Edit: Forgot to add a poll for Yes, No options and it doesn't look like I can do that from an edit. If a mod has the power to do that for me, I would much appreciate it :)
If the shoe fits!!!!
The Thread for Mind Expansion on LDS and Agnostic Thoughts
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
You should already know the answer to that question if you get what it is to be agnostic. As an agnostic, I don't believe it is possible to truly know the purpose of life. I am however, grateful that I do exist for whatever reason I do (if any).