DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
I don't think Atheism is a cop-out, but It's easier to be an atheist (though from my point of view) than a person of faith. Faith is exercised. It is nurtured and grown, it is proven and tested and tried. For someone to say I won't believe it until I see it, the burden of proof is on another; a friend, a teacher, even God.
I think both probably are taught, directly or indirectly. I was taught from day one that there is a God, etc. and because of my exercise in faith and the trials that go with it, the evidence has been manifested clearly. I think those who don't believe aren't taught the faith that is passed down from parents at some point in their lineage or learn that, because there is no evidence in their lives because of the miracle of faith, believing, the existence of God, etc, such things do not exist.
Just my two cents.
From my point of view, I don't think it's easier to be atheist or to be faithful, both have their challenges, each of us have different perspectives on those challenges so one might appear easier than the other.
People of faith tend to see atheism as a cop-out because in their mind an atheist need not follow any rules of morality because there is no reckoning after death for them, but they forget that there are plenty of consequences in this mortal world for being a bad person and in fact many people I know who are atheists are good people simply because it is the right thing to do and they have the opportunity to do it. A jerk is a jerk and I don't think religion (or lack there of) changes much. People have their own internal struggles with morality whether they think they'll be judged on it after they die or not.
It is also true that faith is something that must be exercised, where as lack of faith does not, but that does not make having faith inherently harder. Knowing with certainty that you will still exist after you die and be taken into the loving arms of your God is certainly an enticing thought and is much easier than trying to contemplate what it is like to not exist.
I can't speak much on the trials of having faith as that has never been my strong point, but I'm sure many people here are aware how difficult it is. I'm certainly not trying to say it's easy to have faith, but I think that few people here understand how difficult it can be to not have faith and to be raised that way, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on the subject and possibly dispell the myth that all atheists believe the way they do because they are simply shirking responsibility and taking the easy path.
-
1. Can God be?
It is a definite possibility, I've always felt that way.
so !!!!!!! you DO feel some thing . the holy spirit himself had to give you that feeling, or thought. other wise you would just KNOW that there is no such thing as god and would not be trying so hard to KNOW HIM or to FEEL HIM. you questioned ,,is there a god? .... you prayed and asked for an answer ? if you didnt believe in heavenly father you wouldnt have prayed. god has sent you all the proof you need. ask your wife about the rich man who went to hell, then begged god to send him to his brothers from the grave to tell them to believe in god and obey him so they wouldnt end up with the same fate, god said no because they have his word and the prophets, if they didnt believe them , they wouldnt believe you .( because they would find a reason to RATIONALIZE the fact that they seen his ghost away . probably blame it on the grief of losing their brother.) god has his own way of doing things , when we are able to handle certain things he will show us, but he will never force himself on you. the fact that you have" ALWAYS felt that way,," is proof he wants to commune with you , he is knocking .... its your choice to open the door or say go away. once this life is over, having a complete chance of hearing the word and the prophet of today,,,wether or not you accept is what is gonna seal your fate, the proof is here and now. choose for your self where you end up, god will not be mocked, you will bowdown before him like it or not, you can choose him now or regret it in the eternities. he loves you . but he wont force you to love him back . you have all the proof you need . there will be no excuse latter." BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD."
I think you may be reading a bit too much into my answer. I was simply saying that I've always felt there was a POSSIBILITY of God existing. I have never "felt" God's presence in my life, I simply concede that the majority of the population may not be crazy and there could possibly be something to this whole "God" thing.
-
Interesting post, I will offer my opinions on them. Keep in mind that I am agnostic so you can take it for what it's worth.
In some cases yes, but I think in general it is simply the pursuit of universal truths.1. Religion is humanity's attempt to find God.
Not all, but indeed most do and to varying degrees even.a. All religions claim to be right.
I disagree here, I believe one can live a full life without religion in it. I know other people disagree but I'm simply stating my own opinion from my own experience.b. You must decide which one is.
God has yet to find me, but I patiently await the day that he does.2. God's Word says that they are all wrong. Instead, God finds us.
Yes, that is indeed what the Bible says.a. According to John 14:6 Jesus says that He is the only way, truth and life, and that the only way to God is through him.
More accurately Christians believe they correctly recognize who Jesus is, but it is all a matter of your own personal beliefs.b. Only Christians recognize correctly who Jesus is, and try to follow him.
-
Keep in mind, this is my belief: reason is a social construct just as philosphy is. Both reason and philosophy have evolved with time and so looks enticing. I feel that both overly complicate everything.
Now there is a time and a place for both reason and philosophy and that is when dealing with anything that originates with humans. That is what makes religion so hard to work with. So much of modern religion is actually the creation of men and the societies we reside in. That is why I espouse the concept of getting a first-hand witness from the S-vior instead of listening to the philosophies of men (theology is no more than a specialized field of philosophy and as such is subject to reason and why I adopt the method of investigation called philosophic-agnosticism because there is no way to know if any philosophic/theologic position can be true). Only the L-rd can convince us of his truthfulness instead of the truthiness of modern religion. Until you have taken the time to investigate the L-rd in the way H- requires (reading the scriptures -- I recommend the Book of Mormon; meditation; and prayer) instead of going to other men for insight. I know the arguments about scripture, but again they are only the words of other men.
By being irrational (the opposite if human rationality), ignoring philosophy, and casting aside precedent can we begin to understand G-d. Why do you think the L-rd said to be as little children? We must be mature that is true, but we also must seek the naivete that children have when dealing with the S-vior.
When you deal with other men, it is smart to be as wise as snakes, or otherwise you get hurt, but when dealing with a person who wants to do no harm to you, it is good to reciprocate and do not doubt H-s goodness.
So to begin: get a Book of Mormon and just read, but ignore all outside commentary unless it comes the input the L-rd would give you. If you have questions, ask, but then also ask the L-rd and compare your feelings.
Once you get to know what it is the L-rd has to say, can you then begin to see the value of both rationality and irrationality. Both are important. You can not go through life thinking one is more important than the other or you will get caught with only one tool that does not always work. What is more important, the Spirit of G-d will be there to guide you and you will be ever better prepared for the oscillations and just plain evil in life and the society of humans.
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand your viewpoint a bit better now and what you've been talking about. I've started the book of Mormon with my wife already, I will continue through it to the end and pray about it, but I don't know that it will change my opinion.
I tend to disagree about the balance of rationality and irrationality, but then again I'm somewhat baised because I lean much more to the rational side as you've probably noticed. I have gone through life valuing rationality and disregarding what is irrational and it has served me well so far, but to each his own.
I will continue to search for knowledge of God and everything else in my own way, and I thank you for your insight into the matter.
-
What I want to do is irrationalize religion. Reason is a social construct and as such natural men we are only a giant herd/gaggle/pride of social apes. It is time to grow up as a species, a society, a people (by this I mean Mormons), and as individuals.
I am glad you are not going to completely close your heart/mind to religion. I think you need to open your soul though. It is there and it needs an education as well.
I live in Orem and this is a strange land (my mom says I need to move back to Provo where the church is not so weird).
Perhaps I'm misreading your post so please correct me if I am, but are you suggesting we abandon reason? I've always thought that it was our reason that allows us to rise above being a mindless pack of animals, not the opposite. It keeps us from simply believing everything that we hear as truth and alows us to distinguish for ourselves what we accept as truth and what to ignore.
BTW, we live in Salt Lake City now, but my wife lived in Orem and says the same about the strange people :)
-
I like how you say that you aren't denying anything. You just haven't felt it. And you can't lie and say you have. I get that. The fact that you haven't felt the existence of a God doesn't really bother me. These things take time. I have experienced stretches of time when I didn't feel the existence of a God either. You sound like a moral individual trying to live a good life. That is admirable. And because I do believe in a God, I do believe that perhaps he did create you exactly the way you are. You certainly have tremendous strength in areas that are not my strengths. I appreciate that. I wonder if that is part of the experience here on earth. To be given so much of something.... and then be asked to give it up or to be put in a position where you can't use your strengths and then see what you do with that circumstance. Like the rich man in the New Testament who came to the Lord asking what righteousness he could do more and the Lord told him to sell everything he had and he went away sad. He couldn't let go of all that he knew and all that defined who he was. I find myself in situations similar. Just not about money. But I find that it is in those moments of stretching that has help create faith in me and has helped me to increase my faith. They, along with other experiences of my own personal seeking, that have taught me that God can do more with my life than I can. Mind you, they are not necessarily my favorite experiences because I do have a fondness for the "known", but they are some of my most cherished experiences just the same.
Maybe I am totally wrong and maybe don't know enough about you beyond the little bit you write. But I wonder if God didn't give you all of your tremendous ability to see and understand science and logic and sense - only to ask you to abandon it and try something completely out of your comfort zone just to stretch you..... try you..... push you.... and invite you. Where else is dependence and trust in the Lord better established? It doesn't usually come when everything is familiar and comfortable and easy.
I offer the idea.... not as a sermon..... just as ideas and experience that has meant more to my growth than any experience with this "known" physical, measurable world.
In any case, if you do indeed choose to move on, I have appreciated reading this conversation. It has been very interesting. And good luck and best wishes to you.
Thank you for the idea. I've never really thought of it that way before. I'm not sure it changes anything for me right now, but it certainly gives me something to think about, and I do appreciate it.
-
Think so dude? All I can say is climb and then climb some more. Personally, I would wait for the snow to melt off. The mountains seen through my windows are loaded up. BTW, I'm not a troll: OGRE OGRE OGRE. Big green and smelly and a huge Utah Jazz fan.
Lovingly,
Aaron the Ogre:D
Yeah, it was starting to melt off too until that snow a few days ago. Maybe I'll wait till summer for further adventures.
Seriously though, in my original post that started this entertaining round of textual sparring, I only meant to say that I was going to stop pestering people around here in an effort to rationalize religion as I have found out that the first step doesn't have to be rational. I was not saying that I'm completely closing my mind/heart to the concept. Besides, my wife is LDS and I live in this strange land called Utah, so it's not like I can simply ignore religion completely.
-
Glad to see that you're starting to understand my viewpoint. No offense but I wasn't looking for answers from you . . . Then why are you posting or are you really just an iTroll? You just seemed to have a misunderstanding of my viewpoint that I wanted to correct . . . Trust me there no misunderstandings, agnostics are dime-a-dozen. Having no belief is boring.
You weren't looking for answers from me either, does that make you a troll? I was just trying to explain something to you that you obviously don't want to hear. You say you understand agnostics, but your statements continually prove that you don't. If I were to make inaccurate statements about your belief, are you saying you wouldn't try to correct my view on the LDS faith?
I'm not "blaming" God for anything BTW, you did (denying it is weak), I was simply commenting on the logical paradox of God demanding faith and devotion while at the same time providing me (me personally, not talking about other people) with no evidence for his existance and endowing me with logical reasoning skills . . . We're talking about faith, not knowledge, and so it is not a logical paradox.
(eewww... Reubens are gross Well at least you can take a position on one thing)
Faith exists outside of logic. You were talking about faith, I was commenting the logical paradox. It's still a paradox, we're just talking about different things.
If you're not claiming to know the Truth, then you should have no issue with my personal conclusion that there is no evidence for it . . . I don't. But are you seeking truth or actuality? Truth is different for many people. Communism is a truth. Feminism is a truth. The possibility of historicity is a truth. Evolution is a truth. Rhetoric is loaded with it. Do you know what you are looking for? PC gave you some good advice, from an honest man, about seeking it, but if you are not interested in it, be honest and accept the apathy/stick-it-to-the-man natural to agnosticism becoming a socially constructed little tool.
I am actually seeking the truth and I am interested in PC's advice, in fact I think it's the best advice I've received in a long while and I thanked him for it. I just hadn't seen it yet because I was still replying to your post.
See we can mock each other all day and come to nothing.
That coule be true, but it doesn't make this any less fun
One of the things that has always bugged me about agnostics too is that there have been more people bearing witness to the existence of G-d then those who deny them and yet they simply ignore those witnesses. That is of course understandable, but they never take the search to the M-n in the way H- requires
.
And one of the things that has always bugged me about the faithful is that they never acept atheism/agnosticism as a valid point of view. Yes there are many people bearing witness to the existance of God, but so many of them bear witness to different Gods with conflicting agendas. I'm not denying that they felt something or even that it was something of the divine, I'm just understandably skeptical until I feel such things for myself.
I have made my trek up the mountain and I have my witness, but for you they are only so many pearls before the human herd of swine. You just have refused the climb to stay safe in the sheltered existence of intellectualism. I hang-out in that camp to, know their value, but I will never deny the value of faith. What I find interesting is the insistence on the binary intellectualism and being religious. I don't think it is an either or question, but so many think it is. The problem with the questions of an agnostic is that they always focus on the diversions instead of the real meat like your thread about evolution.
More accurately, I climbed up the mountain myself as well, looked around, didn't feel anything special so I went back down. Maybe I climbed the wrong mountain, but it certainly wasn't from lack of effort.
-
Some of the responses you have gotten are from people who see you as trying to explain God away. Other realize you simply have not walked with the sense of God in your life, and so it may seem to you that all the God talk here is more an explaining away of mere circumstances or consequences of life.
That sums up my experiences here quite nicely, I do believe you understand where I'm coming from perhaps better than any religious person I've talked to (both on the forum or in real life).
I would simply suggest some questions you might considering wrestling with:
1. Can God be?
2. If so, what would He most likely be like?
3. Are there more than one?
4. Would He try to interact with a few of his creation, or would He want to express himself to all peoples?
5. Is He good or bad? Does He want to strengthen us, or have us to serve him?
Interestingly enough, I have wrestled with all of those questions before and that is partly why I am here. I don't claim to know the answers, but here's my opinions on them so far:
1. Can God be?
It is a definite possibility, I've always felt that way.
2. If so, what would He most likely be like?
If God were to exist, I think he would most likely be the initial creator of all the matter in the universe and the complex set of rules that seems to govern it that are still not fully understood.
3. Are there more than one?
There quite possibly could be.
4. Would He try to interact with a few of his creation, or would He want to express himself to all peoples?
It could be that all of reality as we know it is God's great experiment and like any good scientist, He is not interfering. It could also be that we are his loving creation held special throughout all the universe and he watches over us. I think either is possible, but there's more evidence for the former.
5. Is He good or bad? Does He want to strengthen us, or have us to serve him?
Given that most people view God as omnipotent, if He intended to have us serve Him, I don't think he would have much trouble with that. Given that we are not all slaves of God, it stands to reason that if He were to exist, and also if He were to interfere, it would be in the name of strenghthening us.
-
Hey, I can make absurd generalizations about viewpoints I don't understand too, just watch. I see religion as a cop-out: "I don't want to have to think and investigate the truth for myself so I'll take everyone else's word for it and blindly put my faith in this one book ignoring all the others" . . . See! You are beginning to discover the path to truth. Do not believe a word I say, but believe G-d's. Every person on this site (with the exception of El, T, PC, and S) is a nut case and I am happily the fattest one.
Now that you see the path to truth, you have to be open to pursue it and you will never be able to do so until you surrender this need for second-hand witnesses. Get a first-hand witness. The world now always relies on precedent, but with G-d that reliance is dangerous.
Many supposing witnesses are self-serving ding-dongs (and thus my animosity for Nehorish CES personnel).
I do believe every word that God says, but He has never talked to me, hence my current situation. People say that the Bible is the word of God, but that's just the word of people, God has not told me himself that it is his word so until then I'm justifiably skeptical since there are many works people claim to be the word of God, many of which conflict with each other.
. . . I'm always in search of the truth, and I never viewed anyone as oppressing me. I have no idea what your talking about, but go on . . . Great, I'm glad I'm mistaken. I'm patiently awaiting evidence, a feeling, or anything for that matter to urge me to continue my search again in whatever direction that takes me . . . You will never get any of that from me. Get it yourself. You are capable. Never deny what you can do.
Glad to see that you're starting to understand my viewpoint. No offense but I wasn't looking for answers from you. You just seemed to have a misunderstanding of my viewpoint that I wanted to correct.
. . . I don't presume to judge anyone, you are the only one judging here . . . Think so? K. "Oh well . . . " I'm simply saying that I haven't seen or felt any evidence, why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not, but then many who have faith or pray for it have not either, but then they are not blaming G-d for that failure and I hope they are also not blaming themselves, that would be equally aggregious. You can't tell me what I've seen or felt, just as I can't tell you what you've seen or felt . . . Right now I'm feeling the need to go to Jason's Deli and getting one of their yummy Reubens.
I'm not "blaming" God for anything, I was simply commenting on the logical paradox of God demanding faith and devotion while at the same time providing me (me personally, not talking about other people) with no evidence for his existance and endowing me with logical reasoning skills.
(eewww... Reubens are gross)
This is not a matter of pride. I gladly admit how little I know of the infinite universe, but then again I am not the one claiming to know the only truth. I don't know the Tr-th (I wonder if H- is a Giant's fan--I know H- loves the Jazz), I only have faith in H-m.
If you're not claiming to know the Truth, then you should have no issue with my personal conclusion that there is no evidence for it.
I do hope you're truly having fun as well, I just worried that maybe you were taking my viewpoint a bit too personally. I always enjoy a good discussion, if not, it would be rather silly of me to persist in it.
-
Thanks for hanging out and sharing your views, DS. You sound like a really cool person. It's nice that you were open to hearing all these wild views about faith and such. That points to your serious and inquiring nature. In the end, you're right about the irrationality of it all -- and that irrationality makes it so hard to believe. Why would any rational human being believe in things they can't see?? Why not believe in a pink unicorn in the sky? But for me, believing in God is kind of like falling in love. There's not much rationality about love either, other than it tends to make our lives richer.
All the best!
The pleasure was all mine. I really enjoy hanging out with people that have different viewpoints, I usually find that I learn more that way and I can honestly say I've learned a lot here and enjoyed the time spent.
All the best to you as well!
-
See its like this, inquiry means being able to investigate, without bias, every possible point of view. Agnostics typically are either afraid to, don't care to, or just like to stick it to the man. Personally, I see agnosticism as a cop-out: "I'm open to faith, but don't expect me to waste my time finding out for sure."
Hey, I can make absurd generalizations about viewpoints I don't understand too, just watch. I see religion as a cop-out: "I don't want to have to think and investigate the truth for myself so I'll take everyone else's word for it and blindly put my faith in this one book ignoring all the others"
Abandoning the search is one of the best examples of closing down one's mind and beginning the starvation of the soul. I see your declarations as nothing more then trying to stab all those who oppressed you in the past in the eye.
Stab away then, but at the same time remember always it is not G-d who was your personal oppressor. The church is not G-d. It is a bunch of people who for the most part act like a bunch of idiots and would close all their meetings to those that did not fit in with them if the L-rd did not command them to keep the doors open.
I'm always in search of the truth, and I never viewed anyone as oppressing me. I have no idea what your talking about, but go on. I'm patiently awaiting evidence, a feeling, or anything for that matter to urge me to continue my search again in whatever direction that takes me.
The next thing about agnostics is that they look upon all the people who are educated and quite reasonable as delusional and can not see how being religious and conducting life through faith can somehow be possible without surrendering that part of the mind that requires mental agility. Reason is not the opposite of faith, I told you what is: apathy. Instead of saying you don't believe because you are so smart say that you just don't care and that you don't want to waste your time and more people will believe you otherwise you will forever lack credibility by saying "God just made me this way."
I don't presume to judge anyone, you are the only one judging here. I'm simply saying that I haven't seen or felt any evidence, why is that so hard for you to understand? You can't tell me what I've seen or felt, just as I can't tell you what you've seen or felt.
How ever, convincing the uber-intelligent of a possible truth they did not discover by themselves through their pride is like convincing a profitable pornographer that what they are doing is wrong.
Good luck and have fun with agnosticism and like I said: Oh well . . .
This is not a matter of pride. I gladly admit how little I know of the infinite universe, but then again I am not the one claiming to know the only truth.
-
. . . If God has a problem with that, he should not have created me this way . . . do not put this back on G-d. You have agency. If you are incapable of faith, that is your fault and no one else's including The L-rd's.
Free agency... yes I have the ability to choose, but I can not change the way my brain works and that is what I am talking about.
. . . It does not make sense to me that God would endow me with strong logical reasoning, then expect me to throw it away and blindly give my devotion to Him . . . Whatever. G-d did not say to throw reason away when applying faith. They are not separate. To many people they are parallel never coming into conflict.
Yes, to many people these things never come into conflict, but to me they do and I am only speaking for myself.
. . . Many people may see me as denying the obvious truths of the Gospel, but from my perspective, there is just as much emperical evidence for Thor or Zeus, yet no one accuses me of denying them. There is a big difference between denying and failing to see any evidence for something. I have not seen or felt anything in support of any God, and until I do, I don't see how any entity could reasonably expect to have my faith . . . I truly love cliched agnosticism. Did you copy and paste this from somewhere?
Sorry, that is my own original writing, google it all you like if you don't believe me, and yes, it is an agnostic philosophy, so what? It makes sense to me and that's all I'm saying, if you don't agree with it, fine, I'm not saying you should. Unlike you, I actually respect other people's beliefs and viewpoints.
. . . As always, I will remain open to evidence on either side in any form, but I will no longer actively be trying to rationalize and incorporate my own belief in the church . . . Then you really are not open and in fact have closed your mind to all options. C'mon, refusing all investigation is not agnosticism, but strident ignorance in the face of intelligent argument [not that you'd get any from me . . . you wouldn't listen anyway] and the agreement of many people who you prefer to see as those who are incapable of thought as lofty as your own.
Sorry, I'm not so arrogant as to say that my beliefs are patently obvious and everyone should believe the same way I do. I've left my mind open, as it still is, the only strident ignorance I see here is yours. I've investigated as far as I can with no evidence to go on, you can tell me to have faith till you turn blue in the face, but the fact remains that there are countless other religions out there with the same pitch and equal evidence, so how am I being ignorant or unreasonable?
. . . I have heard from a few people that fear is the opposite of faith, but I don't think that is entirely true . . . In this you are correct. Apathy is the opposite of faith. Agnosticism is only another type of faith--faith in the power of reason and in your example, I think there is more evidence of deity then true reason in you posts.
Yes, I have "faith" in my own reasoning abilities because they have proven to work. By most people's definitions it is not "faith" if you simply have confidence in something that has shown to work before. You say there is evidence of the divine but all the evidence I've heard relies on feelings that I haven't experienced. All I'm saying is that until I have something to go on and personally experience the divine in any way, I don't see any reason to believe one way or the other. That is not "apathy", that is common sense.
So if it makes you feel better to misinterpret my words and convince yourself that I'm simply ignoring the obvious go ahead. The fact remains that I came here with an open mind in search of the truth, and your mind is completely closed to anything but the Gospel.
-
Thank you to everyone for your responses. However, after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is not in my nature to accept anything with unquestioning certainty. If God has a problem with that, he should not have created me this way. It does not make sense to me that God would endow me with strong logical reasoning, then expect me to throw it away and blindly give my devotion to Him. No matter how it is phrased, accepting the Gospel for me requires a irrational leap of blind faith which I am not capable of. I realize that other people have had strong personal experiences to reinforce their belief and I'm very happy for everyone who simply "knows" the truth, but it's simply not for me.
Many people may see me as denying the obvious truths of the Gospel, but from my perspective, there is just as much emperical evidence for Thor or Zeus, yet no one accuses me of denying them. There is a big difference between denying and failing to see any evidence for something. I have not seen or felt anything in support of any God, and until I do, I don't see how any entity could reasonably expect to have my faith.
As always, I will remain open to evidence on either side in any form, but I will no longer actively be trying to rationalize and incorporate my own belief in the church. I have heard from a few people that fear is the opposite of faith, but I don't think that is entirely true. Uncertainty is the opposite of faith, and what becomes of that is up to you. I am perfectly content with not knowing, and even if I "knew" God to exist, I don't believe I would live my life any differently. I do what I feel is right because I have been fortunate enough to be allowed to do so.
Thank you again to everyone, I've enjoyed our discussions. Nothing here is meant to offend, I just wanted to offer some parting words before agreeing to disagree and going our seperate ways.
-
I couldn't see where anyone had posted Mike Ash's MormonFortress article yet:
Very interesting read. I think that article sums up the answer to my question quite nicely.
-
Evolution is a theory and a changing one...for me it is hypothetical, a philosophy rather than fact because we don't have absolute knowledge on it. An evolutionist from a hundred years ago, an evolutionist from today as divergent as they are, an evolutionist a hundred years from now...?
But isn't everything in science a theory rather than fact? Science doesn't claim to have facts, just approximations based on evidence. I think that's a fundemental misconception many people have about science.
-
hi again, the one less rib thing i heard from a pentecostal preacher years ago. ( at least i think thats where i heard that ) any way you live you learn. by the way i should have put a question mark behind that as i was asking" is it true that a man has one less rib than a women "? and can you elaborate a little on how and what scientist use to make viruses out of ? i guess what i mean is god/jesus made everything and anything that exist today, so anything that man makes ( the ingredients used to make the product , whether it be a liquid , gas, or a solid, it had to come from the earth or the universe , which god created. so there for is my theory that man has never created anything with out it first coming from heavenly father. god = all created things, and all things that are now create-able start with gods own creations, man,plant,animal....air,liquid or solid. so therefore with out gods ingredients nothing can exist/ before god nothing existed. chit - chat some more later,,,,tree
Scientists have been able synthesize the DNA of, and create a working retrovirus that has actually been extinct for millions of years from fragments of retrovirus DNA that have been imbedded in our own genome. But I don't believe we have created matter yet, so if God is the one that created all the matter in the universe in the first place, then yes, it came from heavenly father first. It's all very fascinating though.
-
DS:
Your brain is perfectly fine. I would question, rather, tid bits of info that you have introjected and taken at face value as facts, when it is just a philosophical position.
I am afraid that faith is precisely that, a totally counterintuitive act that defies logic and reason because it responds to truths above and away from our current level of comprehension. It is a blind step in the dark and into the unknown just because there is nothing else that will bring more happiness to your heart than to see the light, even when you were not sure it was there.
You should try it. It could be liberating.
I don't think I know how to have faith, even after a whole lengthy thread about what it means to other people, I still can't wrap my brain fully around the concept. Every time I try, my brain rejects it.
-
Digital Shadow:This sounds a bit rambly but: I sometimes go to the global warming forums. Scientists and those interested in science constantly update it and debate it and it is highly current. I like it because it shows the dynamic nature of science. Science just isn't interesting to me without this aspect of science. There are oppositional perspectives. As a teacher I worked in a very old school and they never threw their encyclopaedias out...they even had a collection that didn't mention Pluto (it hadn't been discovered yet at that date LOL. I was cross...30 kids with scientific reports on the solar system that didn't mention Pluto...). I have problems with the acceptance of the 'absoluteness' of science. Hardly. The scientific community does not agree and nor would we want it to in the 'all thought stops here' way.
I think to get things in balance investigating Creation Science or Creationists is the other side of the spectrum. There are many scientists that ascribe to a belief in creation and don't feel that their beliefs are challenged by science. I won't send you off on a link or recommend a book. It's a whole branch of science and there is heaps on it. Google or Amazon creation science: there are those that debunk it and those that support it. Make your own decisions. My guess is there is probably a lively and current forum out there where you can put up your questions and get oppositional viewpoints or I would hope so...I think there's magazines for Creation science, can't remember, it was something I was interested in a looong time ago. There's a spectrum of belief from pure creationists, creation-evolutionists and pure evolutionists.
There are even pure evolutionists who are also able to reconcile their faith with their scientific beliefs as odd as that may seem.
Einstein was a creationist.
I have the same issue with the absoluteness of science. In fact, anyone that claims a scientific principle is absolute, isn't a very good scientist. The problem is that I apply the same critical thinking to religion and have problems with the acceptance of the "absoluteness" of the Gospel. This is exactly the point I've been trying to get to.
I have looked into Creation science as well, but it never seemed as plausable or to have as much supporting evidence in my opition. I've done fairly in depth research on the scientific evidence on both sides, before I reached the personal conclusion that there is more evidence for evolution than opposing theories.
I could name many famous scientists that are atheists, but it means nothing as most scientists separate their religious beliefs from their work and it is a personal choice for each person to make.
-
I think "semantic wars" always fail to add to the exchange but I think a clarification is worthwhile. I tend to chose my words rather carefully, so I think you shot from the hip on this one.
I did not say "useless." There are many things that have no utilitarian value for ME, in particular, but they are far from useless. I live in the desert so a jetski, for example, has no utilitarian value to me. You reaffirm my point when you state that the church does a lot of good for others including your wife. You fail to include yourself which stresses my point.
I offered that pure intellectual pursue of the "knowledge" of God will always fail to achieve its objective because it lacks faith as a fundamental component. Again, you object to my words to later just rephrase what I previously stated. You have adopted a model of systematic inquiry that requires a purely scientific definition/explanation of the essence of God. You articulate that a conception of God MUST be explained within this construct. That you require an official position from the Church that could harmonize prevailing scientific theories with the biblical/scriptural accounts. Again, you leave faith outside the equation. All I attempted to do is to point out to all well intended participants in the forum that your position is not likely to change precisely because of the construct of your analytical model.
If the clarity and precision of my opinion offends you, my sincere apologies. It was, truly not my intention to insult you. I pointed out that you are quite a sophisticated guy and that you, very elegantly, articulated your belief system on the post. There is only one issue. It is potentially destined to fail because you lack (or fail to bring) the faith required to really gain insight into the nature and essence of God. We can all quote half a dozen scriptures that will testify to that.
I fail to see how the above offended you but I offer you my humble apology if you would accept it.
I am the one who should apologize as I appear to have somewhat misinterpreted your words as a rather personal attack. Maybe it's a slight persecution complex (if you think Mormons are persecuted for their religion, try telling people you're atheist/agnostic.) I apologize for assuming the worst and I really do enjoy our exchanges here.
So, yes religion holds no utilitarian value for me as you stated in your previous post, but what does that have to do with anything? That is not why I'm seeking religion. I perfectly happy with the person I am and how I treat others. If I should die and end up standing judgement before a just God, I find it hard to believe he would find serious fault with my personal philosophies and send me to Hell. With that said, is the reason you believe in the church because it holds utilitarian value for you? Should it even matter? The truth is the truth regardless of how useful it is to you or anyone else for that matter, and I am simply in pursuit of the truth.
Perhaps you are right and that all my exploration into religion will ultimately be fruitless until I embrace the concept of faith. My background and frame of reference seem to make the concept of faith go against my being though. It is not in my nature to simply accept unquestionable truths since to me everything is to be analyzed (including prevailing scientific theories) before being an accepted part of my thinking, and even then it is not completely immune if new evidence comes to light. I can't seem to turn that part of me off and even worse, I'm not sure if I'd want to. Do you think there's some part of my brain that isn't functioning properly since most people don't seem to have problems with this? (not being sarcastic, I really wonder this)
-
You would need to reconcile this yourself, but have you not performed such a process many times in your life when you have used your own problem solving abilities?
Many anwers in life are not known and in the past, some explanations furnished were incomplete or wrong. That is okay, since ours is a Church of continuing revelation and the correct answer will eventually come to the forefront.
You are a thinker rather than a dogmatist, and the Church needs that.
I am a software developer and I'm very good at what I do. I solve logical problems all day as it is part of my job. My problem solving skills are very well honed, but as a software developer, I have also learned that it is impossible to take everything into account and if you never acknowledge that you may be missing something, you won't be very good. I come here looking to find whatever I may have missed. I'm more than likely not the first person to have thought about all this, and there are many people who still believe in the church, so it stands to reason that maybe someone else has solved what appears to be a logical paradox from my point of view.
-
DS has eloquently stated that he is looking for a scientific explanation for the existence and presence of God in our lives.
I understand his position and have engaged others thru the years in very, at the time, stimulating and energetic exchanges. As time goes on I find myself increasingly less interested in such. His position has not changed, not is is likely to change under the current circumstances. DS does not believe in faith as a religious principle which is this case is absolutely necessary in order to glean insight into spiritual matters.
Second, for DS religion does not serve any practical purpose in the specific. Perhaps in the general sense attending church provides for a point of emotional congruence with his wife and even perhaps a social outlet. Beyond that, religion for him is not utilitarian, it provides no tangible asset to his way of life or sense of self.
Since religion is for him an intellectual exercise just like any other endevour in his life, his frame of reference is set in finding through scientific methods a definition/descriptor/essence of God that would "fit" his model of inquiry. In short; he already decided that if God exist IT HAST to conform to ______ which falls within his theoretical/analytical conceptual model.
Although DS' responses illustrate that he is a pretty smart guy, has has no faith onto God, or in orther words, his faith is not born of the desire to get to know God but to possess the (intellectual) knowledge of the things of God. He actively pursues this knowledge out of the best books but there is no true faith in his exercise. The Spirit is not present in such as he does not hearken onto God.
So yes...I believe he has read the BoM much but he had neglected to most important part.
I'm sorry if my scientific frame of reference bores you. I can no more change it than you can change your religious frame of reference.
I would also ask that you not put words in my mouth. If I truly found religion so useless, I would not be here in the first place asking questions. I believe the church has done a great deal of good for many people, my wife included.
Yes, everything starts as an intellectual pursuit for me, as I don't know how to start any other way. Does that mean I must abandon my intellect to join the church?
Despite what you may think of me, I have no preconceived view of what God MUST conform to in order to accept him, I just want things to make sense before I dive head first into the church. Is that such an unreasonable request?
I also noticed that you adressed almost nothing of my original post. Did you come here simply to warn others about my overanalyzing ways, or do you have something useful to add?
-
I would recommend you read Joseph Fielding Smith's Man his Origin and Destiny and Gospel Philosophy by Elder J.H. Ward. both of these books to speak of their views on the theory of evolution and are very good.
I can't seem to find either of those available for purchase online. Also, I'm not sure the publication dates on those but there has been a lot of scientific discovery in the past few decades and I was hoping to find something that addresses it, rather than the standard look to the Gospel for all answers, regardless of what is discovered.
-
We only have a small fraction of information about Science with theories constantly changing and there is a lot more to the gospel than what we know at this time. In time as our knowledge of both grows, we will come to see that science and the Gospel do not conflict but rather go hand in hand.
My personal opinion is that the current theory on evolution and natural selection contains many truths to it. Just how much of the current theory is correct will be revealed over time but I promise in the end it will be in harmony with the Gospel.
Science and the Gospel are not in conflict.
We have a large amount of knowledge that has been gained through the scientific method, theories in science change, but only because new evidence has been brought to light. Many LDS people I talk to have faith that science and the Gospel will eventually converge, but from where I'm standing it looks like they have already diverged quite a bit, which is my main reason for posting this.
Is the law of tithing for every member?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
As a non-member recently introduced into LDS culture (3 years ago), I've always found this concept interesting. Initially it struck me as rather odd and vaguely superstitious to say that the Lord would demand you return part of your financial increases or he will withhold blessings. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but it feels like my life has been full of what would be perceived as blessings even though I'm agnostic and always have been. If I'm being punished for my lack of faith and lack of financial contributions to the church, I have not felt it.
As I have learned more about the reasons behind it and the good the church does with the money, it certainly seems less strange, but I still can't say I fully understand the concept. I know that the Lord is not an accountant tallying every peice of income you get and expecting His cut, but I can't help but feel that way sometimes when people talk about it.
Are there direct results that are supposed to come from paying or not paying tithing? To me it seems like members *should* pay tithing to be more faithful members, but to expect something as a result of paying or not paying seems superstitious to me. But then again I don't think the Lord blesses the faithful any more than the faithless in the mortal world from my personal observations, but I think many people here disagree.