Doing what is right in an out of control world


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Anyone who reads or name drops those philosophers is a pretentious, pseudo- intellectual snot who is trying to show the world how smart they are. You know, people like @MormonGator

But...at least @MormonGator knows better than to traffic in flagrant, fake-smarty-pants nose-run behavior, because said person would never attempt to show case the IQ God's granted. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Do we bare the image of God? Undoubtedly. We are made in that image. Whether we always know what is right and wrong is another question. We usually do, though. I know I should eat less and move more. I know I should save more and spend less. I know I should work harder and better, and should cut far fewer corners. The Apostle Paul bemoans the reality that those things he knows he should do (and wants to!) he does not do, and that which he hates (because it is wrong) he ends up doing. The just Lord will judge is justly, and many will be undone when they realize what they did and how aware they were, and how wrong they were.

Uh huh. But one can make a rational argument for being less heavy, or restricting one's spending to within one's budget, or working harder and smarter. I'm trying to get at the second order, general question, what is the essence of right? And how can we know it to be right? Because, it seems to me, that unless we can address these questions, we cannot claim to know right from wrong.

I'm not trying to give you a tough time, by the way. I think you have raised an issue of mortal importance. And that is why I am treating it with all due respect, which involves forensic analysis.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. But one can make a rational argument for being less heavy, or restricting one's spending to within one's budget, or working harder and smarter. I'm trying to get at the second order, general question, what is the essence of right? And how can we know it to be right? Because, it seems to me, that unless we can address these questions, we cannot claim to know right from wrong.

I'm not trying to give you a tough time, by the way. I think you have raised an issue of mortal importance. And that is why I am treating it with all due respect, which involves forensic analysis.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I do come at this with some presumptions. God is just and good. He created us in our image. Our mother and father succeeded, for a season of undefined time, at obeying God's command not to eat from the forbidden tree. Then I look to biblical examples. The descendants of Cain, despite coming from the line of one who committed fratricide, ended up being skilled wood and metal artisans. Abram, despite going through most of his life as a polytheist, embraces the truth of one God and immediately obeys his dramatic command. Moses likewise recognizes the Creator in the burning bush. Isaiah owns his failure, and that of his people, when he encounters the presence of God. Doubting Thomas worships Jesus as his Lord and God, after seeing him post-resurrection. Then there is John's gospel, which has Jesus declaring that He is not the reason for condemned souls, but the one hope of deliverance for those already condemned. On a personal level, in the work I do, very few would say they honestly did not know better. And, contrary to the stereotype, very few insist on their innocence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear - To carry, hold up, support.  To hold, or remain firm under, as in bearing a load.
Bare - Open to view, unconcealed, undisguised

So we bear a testimony, but on fast and testimony meeting, we go up to the microphone and bare our testimony.
At all times, we bear the image of God.  But occasionally when we act in Christlike ways, we bare our image of God.  Let your light so shine, and don't hide it under a bushel, and all that.

Bear and Bare. 
Image result for zoidberg why not both 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, askandanswer said:

Of course not! Some things go without saying.

Right! Another inherent truth is that salvation is not possible for anyone from Australia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1). I think I lean towards @2ndRateMind opinion in that “hell”—whether in this life or the next—is largely the state of being confined in the company of hellish people.

I'm not sure that is exactly my point, even though Jean-Paul Sartre famously said 'Hell is other people'. I would rather say that a lack of love, and the loneliness, isolation and alienation from God's good world, and His good children, (and even the worst of us have some saving grace), is what makes for Hell in this life. And that the extrapolation of the same to the after-life seems reasonable.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I do come at this with some presumptions. God is just and good. He created us in our image. Our mother and father succeeded, for a season of undefined time, at obeying God's command not to eat from the forbidden tree. Then I look to biblical examples. The descendants of Cain, despite coming from the line of one who committed fratricide, ended up being skilled wood and metal artisans. Abram, despite going through most of his life as a polytheist, embraces the truth of one God and immediately obeys his dramatic command. Moses likewise recognizes the Creator in the burning bush. Isaiah owns his failure, and that of his people, when he encounters the presence of God. Doubting Thomas worships Jesus as his Lord and God, after seeing him post-resurrection. Then there is John's gospel, which has Jesus declaring that He is not the reason for condemned souls, but the one hope of deliverance for those already condemned. On a personal level, in the work I do, very few would say they honestly did not know better. And, contrary to the stereotype, very few insist on their innocence.

 

As a student of history, I am quite sure that the traditional institutions of Christianity have been tools of evil at many points of history.  The doctrine of Divine Right of Kings is an example of Christianity as an institution gone off the rales wrong.  One may argue some individual monarchs as “Defenders of the Faith” on par with ancient icons of Moses or Isaiah – but I see such arguments as pitiful.

Generally speaking I believe G-d has given accountable humans the ability to discern right from wrong (good from evil).   @2ndRateMind has a point but it is, I believe, an almost insignificant point.   Attempts to hide or cover things from public view is proof someone understands such not to be considered enlightened exemplary behavior.  There may be some confusion with various gray areas – but I believe man is intelligent enough to identify good from evil and when choosing evil able to intellectually excuse it.

But there is another problem.  Obviously, there is no justice between birth and death.  Life as we know it and experience is unjust.  The question is – where really is there hope of justice?  Perhaps this is where I agree with @2ndRateMind – The arguments of justice in the traditional Christian concepts of heaven and Hell – are a far cry from and very poor example of justice.

The point I would make for prisonchaplain and other non-LDS (and in some cases even LDS) is that a great deal is missing in the concepts of good and good works (as opposed to evil deeds) with total rejection that man cannot and should not earn or achieve any goodness applicable to their own salvation or good reward from G-d.   I am appalled that this doctrine finds any traction with “intelligent” beings created in the image and likeness of G-d. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Right! Another inherent truth is that salvation is not possible for anyone from Australia. 

Or, dare I say, anyone with a college level qualification in media studies. Or indeed, red pubic hair. Or anyone who likes brussels sprouts.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Right! Another inherent truth is that salvation is not possible for anyone from Australia. 

I'm not sure if this is related, but for some strange reason my oldest daughter just got a "come look at us" letter from the University of Utah. :itwasntme:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The point I would make for prisonchaplain and other non-LDS (and in some cases even LDS) is that a great deal is missing in the concepts of good and good works (as opposed to evil deeds) with total rejection that man cannot and should not earn or achieve any goodness applicable to their own salvation or good reward from G-d.   I am appalled that this doctrine finds any traction with “intelligent” beings created in the image and likeness of G-d. 

Far too many Christians, particularly from my Evangelical camp, try so hard to prove that salvation is not by works, that long after they are saved they continue to produce no works. In the Works. vs. Grace debate the correct answer is not one or the other, but YES. Grace-empowered good works "preach" Jesus powerfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm not sure that is exactly my point, even though Jean-Paul Sartre famously said 'Hell is other people'. I would rather say that a lack of love, and the loneliness, isolation and alienation from God's good world, and His good children, (and even the worst of us have some saving grace), is what makes for Hell in this life. And that the extrapolation of the same to the after-life seems reasonable.

 Best wishes, 2RM.

Except what exactly constitutes hellish people?  Like @2ndRateMind said - it generally gets defined as the person who disagrees with our idea of God.  People say that we've gotten over idol worship - but i'm not so sure.  i mean, to an extent, if you don't fully understand something, you have to create something you believe is like unto it (and it's this meaning i am hoping to convey when i use the term idol) that you can understand, and worship that.  And i don't think any of us claims to really understand God fully.  At least i don't.

We have mostly gotten past creating idols of gold.  Our idols today are ideals that we bind together with hope and weigh down with fear.  Hell is the place we imagine people who don't worship our idol - or something acceptably similar - will go.  

It's interesting though - almost all of our idols that we affix the God label to, have similarities.  Kindness, honesty, purity, etc.,.  But we tend to cover these base alloys with all sorts of things that make them look different on the outside.  And then we point our fingers and mock the other idols that are made up of largely the same things, and just draped with things that make it work in a specific society.  i think it's the base elements that are the "essence" of right that's been talked about.  Though even the way in which these base "elements" are correctly applied is a matter of intense debate.

i think we'll one day have our veils lifted - and then we'll know the real Thing - no more idols of various degrees of correctness.  But for now, reality is abstracted by our perception of it - and those perceptions are colored a billion different ways by a combination of experiences.  Just like thoughts or things and feelings are abstracted and generalized by language.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Far too many Christians, particularly from my Evangelical camp, try so hard to prove that salvation is not by works, that long after they are saved they continue to produce no works. In the Works. vs. Grace debate the correct answer is not one or the other, but YES. Grace-empowered good works "preach" Jesus powerfully.

 

Thank you, PC, – I realize there is a lot of debate.  But I find Isaiah very informative.  I agree grace-empowered is important and essential but what is grace-empowered?  I believe Isaiah defines this through 3 great gifts from G-d’s grace that enable the Atonement and sacrifice of Christ in order to fulfill all righteousness.

First is The Law.  One cannot do good without being obedient to G-d’s law.  The debate among differing sects and ideas of religion is what constitutes the law of G-d and how is that law interpreted.

Second are the Ordinances.  This is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect or part of the gospel of Christ and witness of scripture.  Isaiah warned about changing ordinances – There is much debate about the importance of ordinances and what constitutes a changing of ordinances.

Third is the Everlasting Covenant.  Your previous post implied that the first commandment concerned the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  But that is not accurate.  The initial covenant was to multiply and replenish the earth.  That Isaiah calls this an everlasting covenant does not imply an end with death.

We cannot claim the grace of G-d without full acceptance of his Law, his Ordinances and his Everlasting Covenant – which defines our acceptance of his grace.  Without the law, ordinances and covenants we are not grace-empowered – regardless of what we think or do.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I read somewhere that we are not punished for our sins, but by them. And somewhere else, that virtue is it's own reward. If so, and we make in this life heaven and hell for ourselves, I do not see why the next need be any different.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Corollary to above:

 

No good deed goes unpunished.<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm trying to get at the second order, general question, what is the essence of right? And how can we know it to be right? Because, it seems to me, that unless we can address these questions, we cannot claim to know right from wrong.

My ponderings are pointing me to the possible conclusion that the "wrongness" of an act, or of anything, is determined by the extent to which it hinders our eternal progression. and the rightness of an act is determined by the extent to which it facilitates, or contributes, to our progression. I believe that we, and God, have the same desired outcome from our time in mortality, and that which contributes to the achievement of that outcome is right, and that which detracts from achieving the outcome is wrong. A degree of shaping and moulding our immortal spirits is required to achieve the outcome, and, like creating a pot on a potter's wheel, some shaping helps achieve the desired end outcome and we call this shaping right acts, and some shaping - wrong act - hinders the creative process. The impact that an act has on our eternal progress is what determines whether it is right or wrong. As to how and why certain acts have particular impacts, and why they have the impact they do, and how that was determined/decided, I'm still thinking about that.

Speaking hypothetically, under this approach, its quite possible to imagine a scenario whereby if we and God were seeking to achieve an outcome different from what we actually are trying to achieve, then what constitutes a right or a wrong action in that hypothetical world could be entirely different from our understanding of right and wrong is in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm not sure if this is related, but for some strange reason my oldest daughter just got a "come look at us" letter from the University of Utah. :itwasntme:

I guess they got the names mixed up - it was probably intended for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. But one can make a rational argument for being less heavy, or restricting one's spending to within one's budget, or working harder and smarter. I'm trying to get at the second order, general question, what is the essence of right? And how can we know it to be right? Because, it seems to me, that unless we can address these questions, we cannot claim to know right from wrong.

I'm not trying to give you a tough time, by the way. I think you have raised an issue of mortal importance. And that is why I am treating it with all due respect, which involves forensic analysis.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Let's start with the very basics, then:

 

How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented? Will it be logic? A 'feeling' of truth? Some third thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Let's start with the very basics, then:

 

How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented? Will it be logic? A 'feeling' of truth? Some third thing?

Exactly that. How will we know? If we do not know how we are to know right from wrong, my point is demonstrated.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Exactly that. How will we know? If we do not know how we are to know right from wrong, my point is demonstrated.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Ah, but that isn't the point. How will you, specifically, and not you in the general sense know? Mormongator believes he knows, how will you know?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

Ah, but that isn't the point. How will you, specifically, and not you in the general sense know? Mormongator believes he knows, how will you know?

But it was my point. I was questioning whether humans in general, or any specific human in particular, knows right from wrong. Furthermore, and to move the discussion onwards, I would contend that we don't. Even within Christian history, there are many examples of Christians getting it badly, sadly wrong, according to the current moral consensus. But I do think that by trial and error down the ages, we are making gradual ethical progress. Doubtless future generations will look back on our time, and consider it morally primitive. But even they will have to find a decisive answer to the question: 'How do we know we know right from wrong?' in order to make that judgment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

But it was my point. I was questioning whether humans in general, or any specific human in particular, knows right from wrong. Furthermore, and to move the discussion onwards, I would contend that we don't. Even within Christian history, there are many examples of Christians getting it badly, sadly wrong, according to the current moral consensus. But I do think that by trial and error down the ages, we are making gradual ethical progress. Doubtless future generations will look back on our time, and consider it morally primitive. But even they will have to find a decisive answer to the question: 'How do we know we know right from wrong?' in order to make that judgment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

So, if I can more succinctly know your thesis: You believe that the only universal truth we can know is that there is no way we can know any universal truth?

 

If I'm incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

So, if I can more succinctly know your thesis: You believe that the only universal truth we can know is that there is no way we can know any universal truth?

 

If I'm incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

Not at all. I just insist that before someone claims to 'know' something, such as right from wrong, they must provide an adequate, rational justification; a right to believe what they believe*.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*See my earlier posts on this thread.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share