DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
The problem I see with your suggestion is that not all people have the same I.Q. and life expierence. Therefore if the filters are logic, reason, and observed repeatable expierence, then there is no reason for faith. The human would be a sum total of their expierence based on their intellect, environment and comprehension skills.
Love woiuld be lust without feelings. Friendships would not exist. There would be no need of hope.
If you read some of my other posts in this thread you will see that I advocate feelings as a valid source of input, but tempered by logic and reasoning. Without the influence of logic and reason we are no better than an animal reacting only with instinct and feelings.
I really dislike the persistant argument that if you don't have faith, the world is a cold and lifeless place. My philosophy is simply that a belief based solely on feelings is not a very reliable one. I'm not advocating that we all become emotionless robots like so many people seem to think I am saying, I simply think that a solid belief should include some form of emperical evidence, otherwise it is just an opinion.
-
It's not "circular logic."
The scriptures come from God.
That is an assumption. Other men tell you that the scriptures come from God, you had enough faith in the scriptures that your feelings confirmed that information.
If you don't already believe the scriptures are from God, yes it is circular logic.
-
One reason we must live by faith, is because it is a measure of protection that a loving Heavenly Father has given us while in this imperfect and mortal state.
A mother has four children. Let's say that she set some cookies on the dining room table for guests that are coming over later, and only three of her children were around to hear her say, "Do not touch the cookies, they are for guests." A few minutes later, while the mother was out of the room, the fourth child comes in and sees the cookies on the table. He grabs one right away and eats it and walks away. Later, one of the other children sneaks in and steals a cookie. When the mother returns, she notices that two cookies are missing. She calls the children into the dining room, and inquires of them who took the cookies.
When she finds out that the one child who did not know that they were off limits ate one, she tells him that he should have asked first before taking a cookie. He says he is sorry and she has mercy on him. But the other child, who knew they were off limits, is more severely punished. He has to wash the dishes after the guests are gone, because he knew it was wrong to take a cookie.
Heavenly Father knew that we would make mistakes and act contrary to his will because of the imperfect and mortal state we would enter. If we had retained our former knowledge from the pre-mortal existence, we would be under greater condemnation when we sinned. The veil of forgetfulness and having to live by faith allows us a little buffer, because we start out not having a perfect knowledge. However, as we gain the necessary knowledge to save us from this condition, we are more accountable for our actions. That's why blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is so serious. If it wasn't for the need to live by faith, we would all be Sons of Perdition by now...
But there's more to faith then just that. That's just one example.
Sincerely,
Vanhin
I like that example. It does give me greater insight into some of the reasons that faith might be necessary. I think it is a reasonable explaination, but I still think that it is a more reasonable explaination that faith is a religious escape clause. I'm open to changing that viewpoint as more evidence comes in, but at the moment it is my best guess.
-
This is the point of my faith:
50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.
These things are promised to the faithful.
Those are good reasons to endure in faith.
What I take away from that is to have faith because the scriptures that you are supposed to have faith in tell you that you will be rewarded for it. To me that borderlines on circular logic, but vaguely reminds me of Pascal's Wager which I find very interesting. I recomend following the link if you are not familiar with it, it's an interesting read.
-
Hmmm....... I am gonna tease you here a little, DS. Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
Actually it is quite scientific. Cross-culture commonly accepted "rights" and "wrongs" are an interesting topic, but to say that they imply a universal truth and guiding moral force is a bit of a stretch. Especially if you look at the strong differences in what is accepted and what is not in certain cultures.
-
What evidence would you accept from God, and how would you know it was from God?
I would consider it evidence if I could honestly and humbly ask God a question and get a correct answer 100% of the time. But it doesn't work that way, you have to have faith when God doesn't answer. I don't see how faith is anything other than a convenient escape clause for religion to get away with not having emperical evidence.
I should open a faith based fast food joint. 10% of the time I'll give them food and the rest of the time I'll give them empty wrappers and claim that they didn't have enough faith that they would get their food. I would save a fortune in expenses.
Yes that was a silly example and no I am not mocking you. I'm simply trying to give a more concrete example as to what I mean when I say that I don't see the point of faith.
-
So just humor me cuz I am tired and my back hurts sitting here in this stupid chair. :)
Let's say that their is no God. How do we all just know what is good and what isn't? I know that there is lots of gray in the middle ground. But most of us agree on the extremes. How do we just know that rape is wrong and feeding the homeless is right? How do we know that steeling the gum from the Walmart is wrong? Not all of us have been taught. And some of us have been taught too much. But our insides somehow know. Is that a process of evolution too? Why is it that when we meet people we can sense goodness or evil? Altruistic behavior doesn't exactly feel like survival of the fittest.
How is the process we have all outlined for you NOT logical, reasonable, and repeatable?
And Yes, people do allow feelings and preference to decide on truth. Just because 30 million people believe in an idea, that alone doesn't make it true. I see that.
This is because determining what is right and what is wrong is a very simple process that is done by our unconscious mind. If you are doing something that negatively affects someone else it is wrong, if you are doing something that positively affects someone else it is right. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if everyone treated other people how they would like to be treated, the world would be a much better place. The fact that many cultures recognize this simple truth says nothing more than it is an inevitable conclusion that most systems of morality are based around.
-
DS:
Do you see yourself in any of the following?
10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
This part of it yes. Where he went with it afterwards, not so much.
-
Because God invented Thomas Edison.
Besides, Thomas Edison sucks. He stole most of his ideas from his underlings, and from other famous scientists of the day... and then made it impossible for them to continue their work, so that he could make more money.
That and he fought with Tesla who I have a lot more respect for.
-
If what you say is true, then there is no right or wrong in the world. Everything.....I mean everything....would be relative to the person's preference or biological process.
Actually what I'm saying is quite a bit different. I am suggesting that people use logic, reasoning, and observable repeatable evidence to determine for themselves what is true. Other people appear to be supporting allowing your feelings and preference to dictate to you what is true and what is not.
-
DS:
In all of your discussion about "it's a matter of interpretation" -- you seem to always lean towards doubting. Why is that?
Is there some reason why you cannot take your circumstances in life and attribute them to God?
What keeps you from being willing to try that experiement?
If there is nobody there, then you've lost just a little bit of time.
If there is "somebody there" then you will begin to experience a relationship with that Someone (He loves it when we recognize His hand in our lives. Gratitude is very powerful.)
I am willing to try that experiment, and in fact I have tried it a few times before to no avail. I give religion the benifet of the doubt and investigate the truth of various faiths, but nothing really stands out to me.
I have no problem attributing circumstances to whatever they seem to be caused by, but I have seen no more reason to attribute them to God than to a Flying Spaghetti Monster. You continually try to cast me as "unwilling" when I am more accurately "unconvinced". There is a distinct difference between the two.
-
What about being unchangingly sure of something that could be right?
Religion seeks to explain our actual reality, particularly in regard to our life before birth, our reason for existence and our fate after we die.
Religion is a progression, just like science is.
If you don't believe in God, then all subsequent discussion is pretty much moot.
If you do believe in God, then the question becomes do you believe in the actual God, or some other God?
If you believe in the actual God, then are you following the course He has laid out for you, or some other course?
My point is that I don't see the value of being unchangingly sure about anything. What is the point in closing your mind off to all other possibilities to give yourself a little more peace of mind? If your belief is truly the correct one, you shouldn't need faith or other self-serving logic to support it.
Religion says that God is real and that if you have enough faith, he'll prove it to you. I say that anything will feel real to you if you have enough faith in it, as is evidence by the multitude of wacky beliefs that people hold. We can discuss the subjective experience of "knowing God" all day, but if there is no emperical evidence to back it up, religion is like flavors of ice cream: whatever works for you is good, but there is no one "right" answer.
-
I think shifting chemicals in our brain IS our immortal soul.
I think that we ARE the unique complex pattern of interconnecting synapses in our brain that is a combination of genetics and environment. Whether that pattern is preserved after death in some form or another, I cannot say, but if I were forced to define something as a "soul" it would be that.
-
DS:
By your own words - empirical evidence can always be trumped.
That is why God uses our feelings to give us that witness. The influence of the Holy Ghost (feelings of peace and surety) is trumped only at our own peril.
Yes, that is the strength of it. I don't understand how so many people see the idea of beliefs being changed based on evidence as such a weakness. Apparently many people would rather be unchangingly sure of something that could be wrong, than open to the most likely truth that the evidence presents.
-
DS:
I see my plan didn't work. :)
Do you really buy this viewpoint you are selling? Do you really believe all of this that you are saying...about love being "just" a chemical process?
Is that all love is to you?
Tom
My point is that it doesn't matter what causes love. Whether it was designed by God as a means to join us or whether it evolved out necessity for propagating our species, that does not detract from the feelings of love that we give an receive. Saying that our emotions are a result of the chemicals in our brain does not make them any less real than if they were originated in some type of immortal soul. The mechanism is irrelevant.
-
Not all religions are Holy Ghost-based. Even some Christian religions do not believe the Holy Ghost does anything for us in particular.
Oriental religions tend towards worshiping deceased ancestral spirits. These do not work in the same way as the LDS view the Holy Ghost working.
Hinduism and Buddhism also believe in the spirits of beings that move or transmute between bodies (reincarnation). There is the belief of transcended Buddhas and gods that can assist us in reaching Nirvana, or the ocean of souls.
Native Americans believe in spirits also, but do not necessarily believe they are guided by a specific one.
However, LDS believe all people are born with a conscience (light of Christ) that tells them right from wrong. God has given us the challenge of trying to find as much light and truth in this world as possible, with the opportunity to obtain more in the Spirit World and next life as we are ready and willing to receive it. God is not going to condemn to hell the individual who was born in the Amazon jungles a thousand years prior to Christ's birth, simply because he did not have the chance to hear the gospel fullness. He will be judged on the truths he received in life and embraced, as well as the truths he will accept in the Spirit World and beyond.
The thing is, most other religions do not view the Holy Spirit or its guidance in the same way LDS do. However, most believe they have contact with the other world - if not with God/god, then with animal/human spirits that influence them. This is very suggestive of our Spirit World (which is upon the earth), and the ability for the veil between us and them to be thin occasionally.
Regardless of what you base your faith on, it is then confirmed by feelings. What you call those feelings is just semantics, I used "spirit" because it is most familiar to the people of this forum.
-
Context is important. Timing is important.
For me, the timing and context of the witness was crucial to my understanding what was being witnessed to me when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.
Let me ask you some strange questions. Please understand that I ask them in an effort to help you understand why the subjective experience IS and CAN be a valid and reliable way to receive truth.
Can you describe the love you have for your wife?
When did you realize you wanted to marry her? Was it based on the scientific method?
Do you care whether she lives or dies?
Why do you care? Is it just because of a bunch of chemical processes?
How would you feel if she stopped loving you back?
If she divorced you, would you just shrug your shoulders in puzzlement and explain it away as "she just has her chemical processes off."
You don't have to answer any of that -- but can you see where I am going with this?
Human are not so coldly calculating. We are creatures of feeling and emotion. Among our basic needs are love and a sense of family.
Regardless of what causes the feeling of love, it exists and is a very powerful drive for us humans. I love my wife and she loves me. I have seen emperical evidence to that effect in the way she treats me. If I had a crush on her and believed she loved me out of feelings despite emperical evidence that she doesn't love me, that's called a stalker.
I see where you are going but I don't think it is a proper conclusion. If you believe that love could be a series of chemical reactions evolved to ensure propagation of our species, that does not mean that you don't feel it just as much as the person that believes it is a magical gift from God. You could just as easily state that love is just a trick that God plays on us to get us to form a union, does that mean you should feel any differently about your wife?
-
The wind blows and we feel it. Wind exists.
The sun shines and we feel it. The sun -- so far away! -- exists.
We eat a big bowl of ice cream at midnight and we can feel the heartburn.
We feel a lot of things. Feeling is a very acceptable way to receive input information upon which to base conclusions.
The Holy Ghost and the Spirit cause sensations in the human body (including the mind and heart) that can be felt, yes. But they are forces in the universe that (likely) come to us over great distances (or where from?), not internal electrical and chemical (emotional) processes. Our bodies are instruments capable of capturing input from the Holy Ghost.
It's not a mental theory that can be laid out. It will and always will be experiential. It is a journey that no one can take for another (parable of the ten virgins' oil in the lamp). A person can only trust -- yes, trust -- enough to take a few steps into the promises that Jesus Christ has given us. There is no other way by which these things can be understood or become of any use to an individual.
Yes feelings are a valid way to receive input which conclusions can be based on, but the scope of what those feelings can tell us is what I am talking about here.
We feel the wind blowing and conclude that there is a giant fan very far away that is turned on a lot of the time. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that the wind we feel is a natural phenomenon caused mostly by temperature differentials.
We feel see the sun shining and feel its heat and therefore conclude that there is a giant hot yellow thing revolving around us. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that our planet along with the others is actually revolving around a giant fusion reactor billions of miles away.
We eat a big bowl of ice cream at midnight and conclude that it is a bad idea since we feel pain later. We examine the emperical evidence and learn the specific causes of it and how to avoid other instances of upset stomach beyond just the one case of ice cream at midnight.
Feelings are supplimented with emperical evidence to create well formed conclusions. I still don't see any good arguments to take some beliefs solely on the subjective experience.
-
Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.(3 Ne. 14:13-20)
Do you believe there is a God?
Sincerely,
Vanhin
I believe in the possibility of God. I can't say I've seen (or felt) enough evidence to say that I believe in God with any sort of confidence.
-
If one has a testimony of and understands the order of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, that person would not need to consider such a possibility. Knowing that this church has the true full priesthood authority, such a commandment from God could not come to any old person- it must come from the Lord through the head of His church.
We only have the right to personal revelation with our own personal stewardships. We have no right to receive revelation on behalf of others outside our stewardship.
If you believe that Joseph Smith received such revelation that went against all churches at the time, wouldn't it be possible for other individuals to do so? If the head of His church is not acting in accordance with His will, then why wouldn't the revelation come to someone else? Is that not what happened in Joseph Smith's time? If Joseph Smith had believed that it is not possible to receive personal revelation that goes against the esablished churches, the LDS church would not be in existance right now.
-
Atheists usually get pretty upset when you make fun of their beliefs too and tell them that what they think isn't true. They get pretty hostile, sometimes you even just have to mention to an atheist that you're a theist and they get hostile, like it's an affront to their very existence. Atheists have also fought over beliefs and philosophies, they also seem to be really into subjective human experiences and culture as basis for forming moral and philosophical codes. Yes, atheists have fought, murdered and died for those beliefs.
(bolding was mine)
I think that anyone would get upset if you "make fun of" their beliefs. What I was saying in my original post is that my beliefs themselves meet hostility. I have never "made fun of" anyone's beliefs.
Your phrasing gives me some insight into why atheists seem to get upset with you. It is true that there are some angsty atheists but most of them that I know are actually quite nice people and you probably don't even know that they are atheists since many tend to keep their beliefs to themselves to avoid the blatant bigotry of many Christians.
-
As long as you don't worship anything, or anyone, that inspires you to fly airplanes into buildings, I'm ok with that!
What if your god asked you to fly an airplane into a building? Would you do it? That is the question.
That is a very good question! God would never ask me to fly an airplane into a building.
He's done worse than that before though.
He has sent a flood to destroy the earth, but mankind at the time was beyond preaching to. It would be appropriate to say that God would not do anything contrary to the laws of righteousness.
This brings up a good point that I have thought about many times before. The church believes in personal revelation. But what if people are revealed things that disagree with the teachings of the church? If you came to your bishop with these what do you think he would say? That these are not true revelation and that you must somehow be mistaken?
Are you only supposed to accept revelation if it confirms that the church is true? If so, what is the point?
Let's step back to a more general example. Let's say that you hear God tell you that the United States has become wicked and rife with sin. They need to be punished for their transgressions and you have been chosen to carry out the wrath of God Old Testament style. Should you listen to God then or should you dismiss His voice as a delusion? This does not appear to be outside the scope of God has done in the past so how can you say it is obviously unrighteous? You can say that God would never do that, but there are people on the other side of the world that believe just as strongly as you that it is indeed God's will, who is to say which one is right and why?
-
Now, here is something that will crank your gear: many people belief that religion only spawned because of evolution. The belief goes that mankind eventually evolved to a point where he could perceive his own death. So in order to cope with that, the idea of an after life was created. From there, God and religion. I for one disagree with that philosophical notion. However, you take it for what it's worth to you.
That's not a philosophical notion, it's is a scientific one. From the objective observable evidence that is the most logical conclusion. It does however tend to hurt many people's egos though. People (me included) like to think that humans are somehow special and not a part of some sort of 'accident'. It is a comforting thought to believe we were created with a purpose and that a greater being watches over and loves us. I am willing to seek out the truth of our origins no matter how humble or spectacular they may be.
-
So much of what we receive from Father in terms of light and knowledge comes after we first desire it. I think Father allows all of these choices and allows men to choose what level of light they are satisfied. In the end, it would only be the power of God that could discern the hearts of the children of men.
I think their is a lot of wiggle room between being exalted and being condemned. We will be judged according to the light we accepted and the opportunities with which we were able to receive it.
This is why humility is an important element. Faith must be tempered with the willingness to put the will of God first. Again, another plug for the H.G. because it is thru this medium that the Father makes his will known to the individual -- even beyond the calling of prophets and the publishing of His words.
I know when I am doing my own will. I feel it. I feel when I am departing from the will of God. Sometimes I feel the warning before I act. Other times I recognize it when I have taken steps in a certain direction. But, if I commit my life and my attitude to NOT relying on the arm of the flesh, I find the help and influence I need to choose a path for myself. I am not perfect..... thank goodness for the grace and patience of God as he works with me until I learn all my lessons.
You make faith seem like something weak.....like something easy. Try walking on water sometime! It takes work...and discipline and humility to fight the doubt. It takes lots of work to nourish and maintain faith. It must be nurtured with study and understanding and wisdom and experience. Faith is not blind. The fruit of faith is light and knowledge and surety. But one must walk into the dark and believe there is light even though all the earthy senses say there is only darkness.
IMHO, it is easy to stay to the known. It is like staying on the dry ground while others swim. You can't know that you can swim until you get in!!!
I apologize if I implied that faith is somehow a sign of weakness. I know it is not an easy task, I am merely pointing out that it doesn't make sense to me. The fact that something is not easy does not make it inherently right. I have noticed that there are truly faithful of every faith who all feel that they are being guided to the right path and that all of the other truly faithful of other faiths are either slightly or very misguided. To me this is a good reason to be cautious of faith in general, especially since many attrocities are committed in the name of faith.
Exploring religious theory
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Please cite your sources, I would be curious to see how scientificly the study was conducted. For every study affirming that prayer does something, I guarantee there are plenty that show that prayer had no effect. For every person that was miraculously "brought back from the dead" to the amazement of doctors, there are thousands of people who simply died and the prayer had no effect for. Were their prayers somehow not as good as the ones that "worked"? How does God pick which prayers to answer and which to simply ignore? I find it far more likely that if God exists he is not intervening and that people look at the times their prayers were answered as confirmation and ignore the times their prayers weren't answered as "it was meant to be" or some such.