Exploring religious theory

[rural]

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.

This is the point of the gospel test - once you've actually taken that commitment and taken that leap of faith, you can feel it... but it is so different from anything that you could be convinced of otherwise. It's just something you have to discover for yourself.

Either way, I don't like tomk's argument about attributing circumstances to God. Of course we are commanded to glory God, but I don't see why it is wrong to attribute wonderful things to what science has informed us they actually are. For instance we could look at a lightbulb and thank God for giving us a magic source of light, or we could know that the light comes from the diffusion of electric energy... and thank God for it.

It's also difficult for some people. I don't know what makes the difference, whether it's level of dedication or what, but many people try and don't get the proof they're looking for, but others do. I don't really know what makes up the difference, but I've felt the difference in my life, and it was frustrating before I got a more concrete answer.

[Vanhin]

DS, I can totally understand where you are coming from on this. I see no reason to badger you until you believe. To me you have been very reasonable, and willing to give religion a chance. This discussion so far is evidence of that.

It's totally reasonable to be unsure of the existence of God, or the right religion, with so much confusion and variety of beliefs in the world, all backed by subjective religious experience.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

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.

You're right, I do do that.

I'm sorry.

I am sorry "the experiment" has not yielded the promised fruit.

My experience has been different.

[japacific]

Why do we thank God for it if it was invented by Thomas Eddison?

[rural]

Why do we thank God for it if it was invented by Thomas Eddison?

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.

[Misshalfway]

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.

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.

[Guest tomk]

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?

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

I invite you to do as Joseph Smith did. Pray. Ask God. He will not upbraid (He will not criticize, reproach or scold you severely)

[DigitalShadow]

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.

[japacific]

That's the same as saying attributing the invention of the lightbulb to his Thomas Eddison's parents rather than to him because they created him.

[DigitalShadow]

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.

[DigitalShadow]

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.

[rural]

Tesla is partly who I was referring to. That man was 800000000 times the scientist Edison was, and almost nobody knows his name, or his work.

That's the same as saying attributing the invention of the lightbulb to his Thomas Eddison's parents rather than to him because they created him.

That's not true, but they do deserve credit for raising him. On the other hand, God placed Edison in the situation he was raised in, and created all things - including the stars that exploded and assembled the earth and the clay from whence we sprung.

[japacific]

You say God did alot of things, but what about the invention of the lightbulb?

[rural]

You say God did alot of things, but what about the invention of the lightbulb?

It makes no difference how hard Edison worked to perfect the light bulb. The credit belongs to both God and Edison for the hand Edison played in that technological revolution.

[Guest tomk]

This part of it yes. Where he went with it afterwards, not so much.

What evidence would you accept from God, and how would you know it was from God?

[Misshalfway]

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.

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.

[DigitalShadow]

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.

[Misshalfway]

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.

Hmmm....... I am gonna tease you here a little, DS. Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

[DigitalShadow]

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.

[DigitalShadow]

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.

[Misshalfway]

Just for fun...... (if this is repetition ya'll will forgive me, right?)

2 Nephi 2

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

[Guest tomk]

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.

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.

[Misshalfway]

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.

I think parenthood helps me, at least a little with this one. (For the sake of the analogy, lets pretend I am a perfect parent. Talk about a stretch! )

I don't always answer my kids. I don't always give them everything they want exactly when they want it. Sometimes, I let them sit for hours at the dinner table with homework or in the timeout corner while they try to figure stuff out. I give them what the need when they need it. I don't explain myself to them every time. I tell them to trust me, or do it because I said so. I don't take any lip. And I don't compromise just because they don't see what I see. They can't see around the corners that I can. They do trust me. They sometimes have little tantrums when they don't get what they want. But I don't compromise when they do. I listen to them and give them gifts. But most of all....They must learn!!!! Capeesh???

[Vanhin]

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.

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

[DigitalShadow]

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.