Part of the reason I created IdahoFallz.com was because I tired of the back-and-forth spewing from the Brad Stowell/Boy Scout controversy played out in the Post Register. I wanted to provide a place for people who felt the burning passion to debate the subject to continue their debates, while the rest of us could move on.
I am writing this post specifically to channel a similarly-heated subject, religion. Most of our readers would rather discuss other subjects, so I am creating this post to facilitate people who want to debate religion issues to do so.
Personally, I have come across a few pushy Mormons, but I find they are the exception rather than the rule. Hey, isn’t it that way with every group? Every group has fringe members that unfortunately define the group’s stereotype.
Here’s some perennial religion subjects to get you started:
- Religious business owners only hiring those in their religion
- People only marrying those in their religion
- Temple practices
- Perceived religious snob behavior
- Salamander Papers/Mormon Murders controversy
- History of churches
- Future of churches
Please keep religion discussions confined to this thread rather than letting it spill into other discussions. Here was the first religion discussion and the 42 responses.
Anyone know any local Quakers? I read a series of books at the library from the perspective of a Quaker minister, and his easy-going demeanor seemed to match my own. I wonder if being a Quaker minister is my calling. It seems very easy also, as part of their ceremony is just sitting quietly and reflecting on your relationship with God. I can see doing that in a peaceful setting.
Anyways, bring it:
Popularity: 12%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 288 comments }
I feel I should contribute something positive to this discussion at this juncture, because maybe my personal views may have been misrepresented a bit.
Lately, I’ve been hard at work on a fundraiser, and in the course of my dealings, I’ve had contact and close company with some very religious people whom I will dub “evangelicals”.
Now, I’ve always had a love/hate relationship with evangelicals because of how they have been portrayed in the mass media – they are the ones bombing abortion clinics, holding signs that say “God hates fags” and seem to have appointed themselves God’s voice on earth to judge the wicked.
However, the friends I have made in the last few weeks have dismantled those notions with their unconditional love and kindness, and this has been a very intense lesson for me – never judge something until you personally experience it.
This particular “religion discussion” has reinforced some of my feelings about the Mormon faith, but also made me confront some of my biases and judgemental tendancies. I guess, when you step back and look at it critically, Christianity as a whole is pretty hard to swallow, as is the Mormon church. So we are all kind of afloat in this boat we call “faith”.
The fact is, no person can really know for certain what the reality of God is, and anybody who says differently is selling something.
So maybe it’s time for us to let our guards down, put away the fencing swords, and ignore the details. The fact is that Mormons and I believe in the same God, as do Muslims, Athiests, Jehova’s Witness’, etc. We just view Him differently. That’s the only difference, really.
Religion should exist to promote love, kindness, and understanding, and so long as this is at the heart of religion or spiritual belief, I can find no fault.
They say that the devil is in the details, and that’s been proven by this debate over religion. We spend so much time bickering over who Jesus was or how one gets into heaven that we fail to ignore those stupid details and see God for what He really is – Love.
So this is my chance to apologize for coming off as hateful toward Mormons. My struggle is with your religion, not your beliefs or you as people. I don’t believe that will ever change, but there is this very intimate something that connects all of us, and that is the belief in something bigger than ourselves – whether you call it God, Allah, Yahweh, Heloman, Buddha, or Nature … these are just different words for the same thing.
God Bless,
Jeremy
“The fact is that Mormons and I believe in the same God, as do Muslims, Athiests, Jehova’s Witness’, etc. We just view Him differently. That’s the only difference, really.”
Eh . . . . . . . .
Not sure I understand the atheist part of this. I believe in your God about as much as I believe in Santa Claus. Personally I think all religions are fairy tales.
I also don’t think christians believe in the same god as muslims or Buhhda. Thats just politically correct mumbo jumbo to try and make everyone get along.
Jeremy — Outstanding… One of the points listed above tells me that you have really grown. Each day we climb out of bed brings new meetings — new experiences — new knowledge and new perspective. We learn. I don’t know as much today as I will tomorrow — and you seem to understand something today that you didn’t understand yesterday. Theres a couple things in your post that will still be polished up over time — But I would venture to say that you actually are wise beyond your years — and in another 20 years — “paying attention in class” — you are going to be a person very full of true wisdom…
Isn’t it Kinky Friedman who says “May the God of your choice bless you”? Yes it is (I just Googled it).
My buddy here just said they didn’t know who Kinky was, he’s a great author, country singer, Jew that upsets Jewish people, and he’s running on the outside circuit for governor of Texas right now.
But the point Kinky and Jeremy were making (i think) is religions all believe in a superior deity that cares for us humans and wants us to be happy and get along.
Jeremy nailed it when he said the ‘devil is in the details’ which are the detailed differences between Islam and Christianity or sub-groups of either, and it’s because those devilish details that people die. As in tortured for heresy, burned as a witch, or killed by a suicide bomber.
I can certainly respect and appreciate the larger aspects and goals of religion. It’s when I see and hear people whipping themselves into a frenzy over the devilish details I get scared and don’t recognize their message anymore.
It is good to see this forum is alive and well. Joe Vandal listens to his people!
As long as I am here, what does anyone think about as above/ so below or on earth as it is in heaven? Are we microcosms of this god of our choice or, for athiests, perhaps of the universe itself?
Chiasm – I mentioned athiests for a very specific reason. Most atheists I know will cite one of a very small selection of reasons why they don’t believe in God – the most common being that they believe in science, not the “fantasy” of religion. However, in my experience, science and religion are not mutually exclusive – they can be, in many ways, complementary, so long as you understand the bible in the context it was written (specifically, Genesis) and science in its context (specifically, the post-modern age we are living.)
See, many fundamentalists have ruined hope for reconciling science and faith by taking the bible as a literal history of everything, an inerrant matter of fact guide book to the infinite, but that wasn’t how it was written. The ancient people who wrote the bible (in my opinion, with divine inspiration) were doing so with the information provided them. So instead of talking about separation of gases, zero-gravity physics, and evolution, the talked about separating the light from the darkness, day-by-day creation, and man being molded from “clay”.
The creation story was presented to a people who knew very little about the way the universe operated, so to give them a way to understand the universe, it was presented as this creation story. It’s kind of like how we tell children that babies come from storks because they have no reference point for sexual reproduction.
Science, in my view, is the humble study of God’s work. The more I learn about the world and how perfectly ordered everything is, the more my faith grows and the more I am in awe of God’s art. My friend came up with an incredible quote that he posted on the wall of his new salon – “Art is man’s nature; Nature is God’s art.”
Lest we forget that this concept of science vs. religion is a purely new age invention (whether propogated by right-wing fundamentalist Christians or the science community, I don’t think we’ll ever know). Lest we forget that it was the Catholic church that first commissioned Copernicus to build his observatory. Theology used to be called the “divine science”. The greatest thinkers of the enlightenment age made their discoveries in an effort to better understand and appreciate God.
The reason I say we all believe in the same God is not for diplomacy – it’s an observation, not a declaration. Think about it – we all exist in the same reality, on the same Earth, under the same sky. So whether I believe in God, Allah, science, or chaos, I believe in the same thing, because the ultimate Truth (the logos) is, in reality, stubbornly and perfectly real and concrete. My belief will never change the reality of God or No God, Allah or No Allah. So, in taking that raw material (the Earth and my experiences), I have concluded that my God is very real and very good. You have done differently, and God bless you for that. I happen to believe that you will be just as saved as me when the time comes, so I have no qualms about supporting your beliefs as they stand (as much as I wish I could share the joys I have found in my religion.)
Jeremy/
Science and religion are most assuredly exclusive. The former uses logic, reasoning and experimentation, the latter simply relies on superstition, fables and folklore from some ancient tribes wandering the deserts of the middle east. Occassionally the words of some wise men rose above the din, an example of which was King Solomon: Proverbs 28:26, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”
Jeremy, remember it was the Catholic Church that suppressed learning and progress throughout history (don’t forget what they did to Galileo), and it wasn’t until the Reformation that the world came out of the dark ages.
World domination by Islamic extremists seems to be our biggest worry these days, but historically it has always been religion in one form or another that has fomented violence and misery in the world, with Christians leading the charge as often as not. Bertrand Russell once wrote, “You find as you look around the world that every single bit of human progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is, the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centures have made it.”
The reason you live in the greatest country in the world is not due to it’s adherence to any religious dogma, it is due to this coutry’s achievements in science and technology.
Jeremy, don’t try to serve two masters. Science and religion are always going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum and it is my contention that to best understand the universe in which you preside, you need to explore the scientific discoveries unfolding in abundance around you. Modern day wise men such as Einstein, Darwin, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Steven J. Gould, to name a few, will tell you more about the world you inhabit than all the sooth sayers, astrologers, prophets and clergymen ever born.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
- Albert Einstein
Don’t confuse religion with the often ignorant people in it. The sad fact is that we are but “feeble and frail” creatures and, when presented with the concept of “God is Love” we tend to warp that into “God is Love … but only for white people” or “but only for straight people”. It is our own weakness, not God’s or religion’s, that creates the pain and suffering so often affiliated with the Catholic church.
I thought religion was about faith rather than superstition.
What’s the difference between faith and superstition?
Isn’t faith just believing in something even if you don’t have evidence?
Common misconception. “Faith” was the creole of the Jews, and it was’t about belief without proof – it was about trust. To the Jewish people, the existence of God wasn’t called into doubt – in fact, it was taken for granted. “Faith”, as it was understood, was about trusting God over ourselves, putting God’s will and love before our own selfish desires and prejudices. This may be why so many have issues with faith, because we have been conditioned to believe only that which we can rely on to be lifeless and constant, which requires no trust.
To me, a pure reliance on science alone seems to have no value. In God, I have found healing and happiness. Those I know personally that rely soley on the world and science are some of the most miserable people I know. So, right or wrong, I will put my trust in God.
The happiest time in my life was when I threw off the shackles of religion and accepted the world as it really is. To quote Robert G. Ingersoll: “When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all thes ghosts and gods are myth, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bards and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant a serf or a slave.”
Sure, Einstein sought to understand the “mind of God”, but he did so by discovering what God had created through scientific research and inquiry, not by reading the scriptures. If reading the scriptures brings you happiness, Jeremy, then by all means have at it. Just don’t expect those of us who are still searching to jump on your wagon.
Jeremy,
What the hell does creole of the Jews mean? I knew a Creole once down in Baton Rouge but I don’t see the connection.
Creole – slang for “anthem” or “saying” or “something we live by”. I meant that part as a half-joke, but I guess we don’t have many Arlo Guthrie fans in the audience tonight.
By “creole of the Jews” I meant “something the Jews lived by”, as in “faith was, in many ways, invented by the Jewish culture and was a distinguishing facet of Jewish religion and culture”.
However, let’s get the topic back on track: In your last response, you alluded to the “prison” and “slavery” of freedom. I know it was in a quote, but since you cited it, you must agree with it, so I would be interested to know more about why you feel this way.
For me, one of the most beautiful aspects of Christianity is the freedom it brings – in fact, the most inspiring parts of the Bible, to me, is King David singing about how God has freed him to do whatever he wants, Solomon writing about the freedom of God’s love, and Jesus Christ telling us all the His “truth shall set you free.” Freedom is a central theme to the bible, and for good reason.
In my personal experience with “religion” (and here, I should mention that I mean no specific, organized religion, but a belief in the message of the bible), I have experienced no prisons, no dungeons, no slavery … in fact, the Good News saved me from these things. Before opening my eyes to the bible, I was a slave to this non-specific anger, to my own selfish desire, to the demands of the world, and in some ways, to sin. [When I say sin, I don't mean it in this new-fangled Catholic sense, but in its original sense, which is a life that is not in harmony with God's love.]
In the bible and in a relationship with God, I have experienced true freedom, especially considering that I have learned that I can be forgiven for all of the nasty stuff I’ve done in my life (no Hail Mary’s required!)
I do whole-heartedly agree with your last point, about studying the universe empirically, to worship and understand God. This is the folly of the fundamentalists – they take the Bible as a literal and outright history of everything (I’ve written about this recently). We should look to scripture for inspiration in our own lives, but we should look to the natural world for inspiration and insight into who God is.
Jeremy,
With all due respect, you’re a pretty moxey kid, but I would bet the farm that by the time you are my age, (60) you will be as much an agnostic as I. You’re still ahead of the game though because at your age most of us old spawners still had our heads in the clouds and our hormonal urges took precedent over things of significance. Being involved in civic matters and matters of conscience were not much of a priority for many of us. I commend you for taking an active role. I suppose being cynical and skeptical are traits of my generation; you remember us, the Viet Nam, Watergate, Nixon/Agnew generation.
Jeremy,
I am surprised to see that you let mesomorph back into your discussion. Last I remember he was trying to bully you around. I’m glad to see you standing up to, and out classing him.
If I remember right the Mormon church had alienated him from his wife and two children and we got to see how he alienated himself from your website. My guess is that if you talked to his alienated family they would have a story similar to the website story. Mr Mesomorph seems like he is a pretty hard character and I bet he would agree. Being free from the shackles sounds like a lot of fun. Maybe if he weren’t such a zealot his family would still be with him. (mosomorph did your family alienate you or was it your arrogance that we have all already seen that lost you your family?) I’ve seen guys like this before that want to blame the world for their troubles. All they have left is to fight everyone till the world believes like they do.
I hope we can all learn at least one thing from jeremy and mesomorph. Wisdom doesn’t always come from age.
Keep up the good work jeremy and thanks for giving us all confidence in your generation.
Thank you for the support, but I don’t entirely disagree with Mesomorph’s take on science – I just think it’s a “good start”. I don’t think it’s fair to bring Meso’s family history into the debate (I’ve had my own family issues).
But on your last point, Meso, about me becoming agnostic someday. Doubt it. What you all don’t know about me is that I was an agnostic for many years, bordering on atheist, until my eyes were opened through a series of incredible event and soul-searching, sleepless nights. During this time, I was miserable, cynical, alcoholic, and lustful beyond repair. It’s a mirracle I didn’t ruin the relationship with my fiance at the time.
So no, I will not be as agnostic as you someday, nor will I ever become as jaded and cynical, because that world view is a poison that will destroy you … how could it not!? I have found more joy in my relationship with Christ than anything in my life (my wife is a very close second), and nothing will ever change that.
I also happen to believe that it’s never too late. Even at the ripe age of 60 (which is the new 50), I believe that people can change. Hearts can be healed. Cynical world views can be repaired.
It’s happened before, and it will happen again.
“I love GOD I just hate his fan club”
I just thought I would pass on to you some of the reasons I am a cynic, especially when it concerns organized religion and the LDS Church in particular.
A close relative of mine, who was later to become a general authority of the LDS Church, was an integral part of the Bonneville Pacific Corporation, a small publicly traded energy company, headquarted in SLC, Utah. The executive roster was a glittering array of high ranking Mormon businessmen with impressive pedigrees that spanned decades in the land of “Zion”. But Bonneville Pacific was really nothing but a mini-Enron scam with all the fraud and mismanagement of same. Their assets existed largely on paper and were traded often amongst subsidiaries to further inflate their “worth”. When the west coast energy company, Portland General bought in for $76M that money was quickly siphoned off and the stock in that company became as worthless as the paper it was printed on. The SEC set up an office in SLC and federal bankruptcy officials came in to investigate. The principals were indicted but “tithed” heavilly to the church with their ill gotten gains; so the feds went after the LDS Church to recoup that money for swindled investors.
Ah, but alas, in rides Republican Senator and fellow Mormon, Orrin Hatch, to the rescue. He co-sponsored a bill that would prohibit the government from seeking redress from church coffers, rife with bankrupt parishioners dirty money.
My relative, who was fired when Portland General took over, received more than half a million dollars through a golden parachute clause in his contract. Later a federal judge (who also happened to be a Mormon) said he would only have to give back half of that to swindled investors because he was about to embark on an “unpaid” job as general authority of the LDS Church.
It seems a person’s worth to this church is measured in how much they can add to the bottom line and not how many souls they can bring to Jesus.
If anyone would like confirmation of this account, it was published in Barron’s Magazine, January 11, 1993 and written by Jaye Scholl. It was titled “Snookered in Salt Lake City”.
Hey, Poky,
Don’t confuse passion with arrogance. If you have something to add to the discussion; jump in, but try to contribute something to the table other than the tripe you offered up.
Hey, Poky
Sounds like you are on a might high pedestal. All I heard was a rant not backed up by any fact.
I dont know any of these people and I guess you make up the stereo type of this area, allways running there mouths about mothing they know about, and just gosip. all people like you do is try and hurt others with what you say.
Meso – it sounds like some people got greedy and did some rotten things – but again, it’s important to understand that the people are not the ideas behind the religion. As much as I disagree with the Mormon religion, I cannot allow myself to associate the actions of the people with the religion itself. Religion is about personal growth and ideas – too often, people are about personal gain and squashing ideas they don’t agree with.
So your example is a great example of how disgusting people can be when they begin to worship money, but I still don’t see how the misguided actions of a few can jade you to an entire segment of society (in this case, Christianity and religion.)
I have seen miracles in my life. They will stay with me forever … and no amount of corporate scandal or greed will change that.
I used to be a very cynical, angry person, until a good friend gave me some good advice – “give it to Jesus”. I did, and I’ve never been happier. The funny thing about human nature is that we tend to fear and fight against change – even if it’s for the better. I see that in you, holding onto that anger and pain. For what? What does it do for you?
It is true freedom to leave those things behind.
Jeremy,
So what are you saying? If these things were happening in our own state…if our elected officials were puppets of an organized, wealthy religion, if corruption and fraud were as rampant in our state as they are in our neighbor state to the south, you would be content to “give it over to Jesus” and let him sort out the bad guys?
Maybe you are not as civic minded as I had previously thought. It’s hard to be objective about the landscape with your head buried in the sand. Get those rose colored glasses off and look around, a little skepticism might do wonders for you, young man.
Well, I’m not going to damn a whole section of society for the misguided actions of the few. That’s that.
I would not say I’m civic minded. I have values that extend beyond what goes on in my back yard, because my back yard is a pretty great place compared to some places in the world.
Simply because I care to take action again other forms of evil doesn’t mean it’s any less valuable than your crusade against what you view as a corrupt religion.
It’s just different.
I don’t know if this thread is still being read, but I have a thought I feel I should share.
After reading the posts from beginning to end, I fail to find a single reference to an individual’s “spirituality.” I believe being spiritual and being religious are two separate and distinct traits. A religous person would be worried about checking off items on his (and your) list of commandments. A spiritual person would be inclined to be in tune with God, to listen for the promptings of the Spirit to guide his daily actions.
Spirituality and Religion are NOT interchangeable terms!
Go back through the posts and try and insert spirituality where the word religion appears and you’ll get my point.
Religious people are about proving to themselves and others how well they adhere to the rituals of their faith. Spiritual people don’t worry about that.
Living the spirit of the laws and living the letter of the laws of God produce two entirely distinct groups of individuals.
I prefer living by the spirit of the law.
Actually, whichever tack you take, if you believe in a God, that is religion.
re·li·gion Pronunciation (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Sorry for the paste up, but I thought this might be a point from which to continue.
So what then is the definition of spirituality, how does it compare and contrast?
Without throwing out more definitions which won’t take us far, I would point out that an individual could certainly believe that they have a “spirit” , experience that in the world, be in tune with that nature without subscibing to a religion. Spirituality in and of itself does not imply higher powered beings or a dogmatic set of rules and ideals. In fact one can make any decisions at all.
What triggered my comment above was Inside observer saying that “living the spirit of the laws and living the letter of the laws of god…” implies a belief in a God. In that context, it all sounds like religion.
I think we’re dealing with a cultural mix-up of definitions here. I agree with Archy’s take that we are talking about the same thing between religion and spirituality – all too often, “religion” comes to be associated with organized religion and the strict parameters and dogma that comes with it. I believe that any religion not based on spirituality is not worth my time of day.
I do not consider myself a “religious” person, mainly because I don’t regularly attend church services at a specific church. So, according to society’s definitions, I am not religious.
I always loved Rich Mullin’s term for himself – “the Vagabond Evangelist”. That’s how I feel. No real place to call home but in the company of Christ.
Is it possible to have a religion not based on spirituality?
The definition Archy provided in comment #26 seems to indicate that’s impossible. I think spirituality is the foundation, and religion is the step up. I don’t think there could be religion without spirituality, could there?
I don’t think religion is a step up from spirituality. Spirituality is a step up from religion.
Think about it. Where do we learn about God? In church. So we start going to Sunday School and learn about who Christ was and what he did for us. We memorize the facts (the scriptures, if you will) – on an intellectual basis. Being born in Christ is that moment when our heart/soul comes to embrace it. Very similar to learning any other information. Like memorizing the facts of multiplication. We know 6 x 8 = 48. Spirituality would be akin to knowing WHY that is so, seeing the bigger picture, not just a memorization of the facts.
Spirituality is that moment when we “see” the bigger picture. When we become the kind of people who desire to live as Christ lived.
To me, religion is man’s attempt, utopianly, to bring people to a level of spirituality. So a particular denomination will prepare a checklist of things to do, rituals, etc, of things that will elevate you to that level. Keep this commandment, keep that commandment pay your tithing, do service work, say your prayers, go to church, don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t dance, whatever, and on and on. Optimally, if you do all these things, you will be a follower of Christ. HOWEVER, if you aren’t doing them for the right reason, then you are a religious person. You’re doing it because your bishop or minister told you to. And because you’re afraid of the eternal fires of damnation. You become a spiritual person when you do the things you KNOW to be right because you love your Father in Heaven, and you WANT to obey him and serve him.
I’ll say it again. Religion and spirituality are not interchangeable terms. You must have religion to learn about God and Christ. From there you CAN progress, hopefully, to a level of spirituality where religious ceremony and ritual may be necessary or desirable to keep you at that level but is not necessary or desirable for everyone. It becomes a personal decision about whether it is necessary for you.
Christlike love is not born out of fear, but out of love of Christ.
I think if more people were spiritual rather than religious, we wouldn’t have near so many people complaining about how the mormons did this, and brother so-and-so did that, and sister what’s-her-face said this and so on. Spiritual people don’t judge others. They’re worried only about their own relationship with God and what, if anything, they can do to truly help you, for the right reasons, not to “lift you up to my level”. (Yes, sarcasm is intended)
Very well said, Inside Observer! I completely agree.
Wow, that was very well said, I did have it backwards!
I had not thought of it that way.
I still believe it is possible to be spiritual without any context of higher power in the first place. Spirituality does not have to entail another person, another magic being or anyone else beond personal experience. And actually, 8 x 6 = 48, too. So you didn’t have it backwards.
Surely in the infinite it is impossible for anything not to exist, ao all religions as well as any thoughts possible are true and real. Einstein’s watch analogy for physics states that (my paraphrasing, sorry) we can construct something that in every way functions exactly like a watch, but until we break open the watch, we do not know if we have constructed the same thing. Religions abound making the face of “god” to comfort the basic human fear of death.
I note that most of the comments here seem to center around Christ. I would point out that our religions, more often than not, have been handed down from generation to generation and are rooted in bloody persecution of religions that existed before our own, in the name of Christ. Hardly a true personal enlightenment. Also,
the Christian view represents a tiny portion of religious viewpoints. See adherents.com to start.
This doesn’t quite tie in, but things are getting heavy and I just remembered that joke about the guy who comes back to life and says it turns out God’s black and she’s pixxed.
Well,
I suppose one way to look at it is this.
If I live my life as if there IS a God and there are eternal repercussions/blessings for my actions, and I die and I was wrong, I have lost nothing.
If I live my life as if there is NOT a God (and consequently no repercussions for my actions) and die and I was wrong . . .
According to the philosophy of unconditional love, or christ dying for your sins, you should be OK.
Could an unfathomably greater being really hold it against us for being stupid? Frankly Karmic backswing in the living life is enough to watch out for.
Archy – I understand your point about the multitude of religions out there not involving Christ, but you need to understand that many of us here who are believers (religious?) believe in Christ, and in believing in Christ, we believe that He is the truth, the ultimate truth, so we’re not inclined to talk about other religions.
I also have heard your “religious persecution” argument time and time again and fail to see how that applies to my faith in God and Christ. Jesus never persecuted anyone, niether did I or my parents. Oh, wait, you must be talking about the actions of certain individuals and groups, not “religion” or “Christianity”. I think you might be mixing up the two.
I think there are many problems with this thinking:
“If I live my life as if there IS a God and there are eternal repercussions/blessings for my actions, and I die and I was wrong, I have lost nothing.
If I live my life as if there is NOT a God (and consequently no repercussions for my actions) and die and I was wrong . . . ”
The first problem is that you HAVE lost something… time… the one thing you can never get back. Time spent in religious meetings, gatherings, worshipping, etc. that could have been spent with your family.
You also contribute to the idea that women are 2nd class to men as written in many religious scriptures and still holds true today (how many religions have women as their leaders?).
Often you are also giving up as much as 10% of your income that could be used for family trips, vacations, weekends away, etc.
You are also living your life in fear… fear that there is a God and that you will be punished later. Is that really how anyone should live their entire life?
It is VERY possible to live a very normal, healthy, honest, and loving life without religion… and without the guilt.
Two comments are troubling me:
First, “If I live my life as if there IS a God and there are eternal repercussions/blessings for my actions, and I die and I was wrong, I have lost nothing.
If I live my life as if there is NOT a God (and consequently no repercussions for my actions) and die and I was wrong . . . â€
This belief is so widespread throughout Christianity, and I don’t get it. The “fear of God” is an awe and respect for our creator, not a fear of eternal retribution for our actions. If God intended to punish us for our actions on Earth, why send His son to die for us? Why is grace necessary if we’re just going to suffer for eternity anyway? Isn’t the very basis of Christianity that we have a loving, personal God that wants nothing more than to be with us, and for us to come to Him? Something has happened in the last few hundred years that has changed the scriptures from “God is Love” and “Amazing Grace!” to “God is a strict judge with a gavel and a grudge.”
I know there are some passages in Revelations (ie “They shall be judged according to their works”) that seem to indicate a scrutinized judgement day, but how much do we understand these passages in the first place? Could it be that our capitalism and “eye for an eye” judgement conditioning has changed how we percieve these passages?
Now, Outty800’s comment about guilt really bothered me on several levels. Are you saying that guilt (and, I guess, morality) is an invention of religion? You say that a life without religion is one without guilt, with more time, with more money (oh, boy!) and without fear. But you’re talking about my life before I came to God. See, my life without God was one without purpose, without direction, without any kind of understanding of why morality is important. I disagree with your assertion that a life without religion is one without guilt – in fact, my religion has freed me from the chains of guilt.
If you believe in Jesus, and what he says, you should believe that He came to Earth to make all of that guilt and pain and suffering easier to handle – because the Good News is that it’s all going to be okay! Jesus taught that we should strive to live a life according to the Spirit of the Law, but He doesn’t expect us to be perfect (which is why He allowed himself to be murdered).
The Christian life is not one that avoids risk, as previously mentioned. In fact, the Christian life is one dedicated to risk and uncertainty, of challenging faith and seeking a more perfect understanding of God. It is not taking the safer of the paths – it is taking the one that leads down untread paths and unknown roads. It’s the way of the world that’s safe, in my view. There is something kind of comforting about engulfing oneself in physical things … but to me, that world is empty.
My faith is not based on fear or safety – it’s based on love, passion, and hope. Show me the harm in that.
Having been a somewhat religious person for the first 30 years of my life, and recently deciding there was more to life, I can say that I am a totally new person. I have never been this happy and content in my entire life. Things that I used to worry about and feel guilty about no longer matter. I now make my decisions and choices based on my OWN value system, not someone else’s.
For me it was a complete turn-around in thinking… what if there is no God? What if Jesus was just a great leader in his time? What if the Bible is just a book of stories that was written to teach people how to be nice? (What will our books today be like for people 2,000 years from now?)
You did not address one of the main issues… why are all religions still based on the principle that men are greater than women? Why are there no female leaders?
Because people are stupid and will use anything to justify their own biases … the bible just happens to be a nice crutch for the ignorant.
Look, I’m not looking to get into a bible-bashing debate. I know there are passages in the bible that seem to justify the stifling of womens’ rights. I struggle with that. But I also understand that the bible, while being divinely inspired (in my view) is the work of man, and therefor is not perfect. I trust my personal relationship with God more than someone else’s.
ps There is a local Methodist church with a female Pastor. So I guess not ALL religions believe that men are greater than women.
I think perhaps my wording was confusing, JPlo. You will not that I haven’t said anywhere that Christianity is wrong or that it is unchristian because of anyone’s actions. Or that God doesn’t exist, etc. My point is merely historical. The Christian religion is a drop in a drop in the bucket of human history, and there has always been religion. However, Christianity has carved it’s way into dominance not through sincere conversions but bloody no choice conversions. If you don’t want to go back to the wiping out of the old religions in Europe, just go back 500 years in amerika. There was religion here steeped in the mists of time. Then Christianity came and killed the savages and forced the survivors to be christian. Granted we have “freedom of religion” but come on. The Mormons even got chased across the country and that is at least pseudo christianity. Local Mormonism may be a better example of the more recent historical aspects of my point. In but a few generations, ideals have been handed down through families. Chances are if you are born into a mormon family, you will be raised mormon. No exploration of other religions or possibilities about the face of God. Now that one doesn’t always stick like some of the faces of christianity which can be a bit more tolerant, but when it does the given Mormon goes out, produces spawn, and educates them in the “one way”. Thus, your “choice” of Christ as savior and the only truth has not been a choice at all, it is what was handed to you either by your parents or by the very dominance of Christianity through absolute warfare on anything else. You have been taught that Christ is the one truth and you better not (apparently) “be inclined to talk about other religions.” If you have kids, I’m sure you will teach them that, etc. If Christ is the one and only truth, then all of the violence, etc. is perfectly justified, anyway. Just trying to get the truth out by whatever means, I guess.
I would still point out that Christianity is a tiny religion. Once again, it’s like Mormonism. If you grew up here, you probably thought for a long time that it was this huge religion because of the percentage of mormons you grew up with. You probably thought it was powerful, too because of it’s grasp on this town and one “city” down south of here. But it’s numbers are miniscule compared to Christianity whose numbers pale before yet other beliefs.
As for the guilt, I wonder if you would not feel a deep and dreadful guilt for even thinking that Christ might not be the one and only truth, ultimate truth and talking about other religions, or if that would be OK? Is it love passion and compassion that keeps you honest or would you feel guilty for breaking Christ’s laws? And I still think it all comes down to fear of death, horror at the unknown. Basically trying to fill the existential hole with crepe paper instead of digging for and individual relation to higher power. Hexx, I don’t care if you worship Peanut butter. If it fulfills, it’s real.
Archy – reading your reply, I can’t help but be reminded of a site called http://www.shoutwire.com – mainly because you and they share a handful of misconceptions and cliches that are rarely, if ever, true. Allow me to expand.
I grew up Mormon, but as long as I can remember, I never believed in the religion. I noticed strange inconsistencies between the bible of the Mormons and the bible you could buy at any book store. The doctrine I was being teached just didn’t sit right with me. I knew, somewhere inside, that the Mormon church was just not right.
So, as early as 15, I had made a decision that I would not be a part of that religion.
Yes, that was my choice, but the reprocussions that came after were not.
I fell into an uncertain terrain called Agnosticism, rejecting any concept of a personal God, and with it, rejecting Christ and the divine nature of morality.
Now, I’ll skip ahead a few years to keep this relevant to our discussion.
You said:
[You have been taught that Christ is the one truth and you better not (apparently) “be inclined to talk about other religions.â€]
This only shows how wrong the cliches you have worked up in your head are. I grew up being told that the Mormon church was the one truth, not Christ. However, at the same time, my dad encouraged me to criticize and scrutinize my religion. He bought be books, had long talks with me, and let me understand the world in whatever way I chose. So no, my parents did not “force” Christ on me – in fact, I would say that my upbringing has little to do with my Christianity.
My history with Christianity is no more than 2 years, and my religion is not based on fear of God’s retribution for breaking His law, but a joyful coexistence. If you want to get a different view of Christianity, at least to better understand it, I suggest C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” and “Suprised by Joy” or the book “A New Kind of Christian” by an author whose name escapes me. You may be suprised at how some Christians manage to love God without fearing His vengeance.
And your last point really interested me. When I was agnostic, I feared death, because it meant the end of existence, at least as far as I knew it. However, in learning to understand the world differently, I no longer fear death. It’s not that I know my spirit carries on (which I believe it will) but that I know that the end of my life is not the end of existence, but a part of a larger, more perfect existence, which is the whole of life on Earth.
But that’s just my take, which is influenced by my “tiny” little religion.
OK I was just quoting you about your inclinations. Also for the 3rd time, I am hardly attacking anything but self richeous attitudes about religion. I have read Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, On Love, Collected Essays, and happen to think C.S. Lewis has a most philosophically sound standpoint that comes from intelligent introspection, not Dogma.
You exhibit presicely my point in the last. You abandoned one face of god as making sense to you, matured into your sense of mortality, and instead of facing it fearlessly, ran to another face of god as defined by someone else. I don’t see where realizing that your spirit carries on, that your end is not the end of existence, etc. (and beautifully said, BTW.) relates to God in any way. Your atoms decay and become something else. We are all made of stars… May I ask what was so scary about death that you needed a new religion ?
I don’t see any refutation of the fact that if Christians hadn’t persecuted as many religions as possible, and you were born in the same place, you wouldn’t have been Christian because the fact is Christianity, based in martyrdom, would not have suceeded on it’s own merits. It demanded distinctly unchristian wars and the Salem witch trials, killing off the Natives, etc. to actually dominate. I say again, If what you say is true,(Christ is the one and only truth) I guess it’s all justified.
I’m glad for your joyfilled coexistence but it seems to me a difficult thing to truly commune with God by simply reading someone else’s understanding to make you feel better. Justify my lifestyle, so to speak.
And a lot of religion IS just handed down through the generations. In using Mormonism as an example, I said “chances are” and “If it sticks”, which luckily does not pertain to you.
I would suggest to you, and it sounds as though you are probably already familiar, something along the lines of “The Prophet” which manages quite neatly (although Christianity has sort of claimed it) to talk of higher powers, life and death in hypotheticals, rather than absolutes.
So do you follow God’s laws as a Christian, or are you one of those “we’re buds, so whatever goes” types?
I do not know if this goes against what you say, but years after the conquistadores, despite the raping, looting, senseless killing and violence, the slavery and deception, the inhumanity, I am just thankful that the Catholic religion has brought us freedom from our primitive ways.
Archy – one of your points isn’t sitting right with me. The part about reading that which supports our own ways of thinking, specifically. While I think you put it in the most sardonic, pessimistic way possible, I think most people do this. I have a friend who is a staunch atheist who reads nothing but books that support his preconcieved notions. As a Christian, I prefer to read books that help me to explore my faith and what it means to me.
Of course, though, the ultimate goal is to come to a more perfect understanding of who God is. If I can use another’s experiences to aid in this process, then I see no harm in that.
Now your last question caught me off guard – the one about “the law”. I have never known but one Christian who followed God’s law perfectly, and even He broke a few rules here and there (that would be Christ, in case you hadn’t caught that.) By “God’s Law” I have to assume you mean the Laws of Moses and the Torah, the foundation of Christ’s teachings and the Jewish religion. To say I follow the law would be misleading – because it’s not that simple. It’s not like if you don’t smoke pot or curse, you’re following the law. The law, as fulfilled by Jesus, is about living in such a way that we are mirrors for God’s glory and goodness – as in, we try to love and accept and serve one another as much as we can, not because God demands it, but because that is what someone touched by Grace does. It should be a natural process, like puberty. So you might say that I’m going to spiritual puberty, not adhering to any set of laws.
Well frankly I think that the question was a bit personal, anyhow. My main point, going way back, was simply “Spirituality in and of itself does not imply higher powered beings or a dogmatic set of rules and ideals.” I am still not convinced otherwise. I never have said that religions are bad of unspiritual.
But the larger issue that seems to be evolving is the idea that one belief system is better than the others. If Christ is the only truth, what happens to the Muslims and the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Jews? Or the rest of the world? As I have said before, Christians are in the minority, here.
I forgot to credit Kahlil Gibran, author of the prophet, The wanderer, The Madman, and several others I could reccommend. The prophet, in particular is undeniably spiritual, even though the “prophet” in the book is a ficticious character and demands no worship.
And please note that for any philosophizing, I have hardly declared myself an “athiest”, on the contrary I asserted earlier that in the infinite, all religions are true. And I have not involved my personal religious beliefs in the discussion.
I guess in puberty it’s OK to have premarital sex a couple of times, I mean hey it’s hormones and all, right?
I suppose if you want to discuss the law of god then we could keep it to the top 10.
I have not read any of the books mentioned.
I have read part of Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, by Bruce Bawer.
It’s an academic study of religions and what the author posits are two flavors of Christianity: Jesus-love and Jesus-law.
You can imagine from those terms it is how the various religions (or even individual priests in those religions) interpret Jesus’ teachings. The cover has a protest sign reading, “Hell is Hot Hot Hot”.
I could only read about half the book, despite trying a few times over the years. It’s too sad.
I just checked and our local library does not have it. Maybe I’ll donate it to them.
I mentioned the book earlier, so I thought I better throw in the author. There is another book by Kahlil Gibran called Jesus the Son of Man that may be of interest.
I can at least agree with the name of the book, because if anything makes Christianity look bad it’s Channel 26 and it’s endless efforts to convert the whole world and make lots of cash doing it.
That last was in reference to the book you mentioned, Joe.
JPlo: regarding the statement “It’s not that I know my spirit carries on (which I believe it will) but that I know that the end of my life is not the end of existence, but a part of a larger, more perfect existence, which is the whole of life on Earth.” I don’t hear any reference to God or a Biblical reference. I really do think that’s a nice way of putting it, I believe you took me for sarcastic. But is this your spiritual view or religious view?
Well it appears that we’ve gone down the “If you can’t answer it, ignore it” road, or perhaps talking about non Christian religions was out of bounds. So, as I believe would relieve Joe as well, let’s just change the subject. How about (from a strictly Christian/ there are no other religions standpoint):
Does anyone feel that Biblical evidence puts us 4 squarely in the
midst of Armageddon ?
Considering I was busy running a fundraiser last night when you posted that, it’s safe to say I’m not ignoring your question.
And I’m not too keen on jumping into a discussion on other religions simply because I don’t believe in them. So what gives me the right or ability to talk about them?
Well, like I said. Let’s put on the blinders and pretend they don’t exist, then. How about Armageddon? yes? no? Anyone?
“Armageddon” covers a lot of subjects. To which are you referring?
Well, in your educated opinion, are we or are we not in fact seeing Biblical signs of the final days? Or is there something more simple you would like to address? Or perhaps “religious discussion” is just agreeing with your viewpoints.
You know, if you have something to say, you may as well just say it without the smarmy comments and hateful attitude.
Anyway, I’m not one to say that we’re living in the last days. Sure, the signs are there, but they’ve been there for years and years. I remember reading about pastors preaching about the last days during WWI, WWII, and Y2K, so everytime we think we’ve called it, it hasn’t come. I wish Christians would focus more on doing good things in this life rather than hoping the next life will expedite itself.
In reading Revelations, it’s clear that we’re not supposed to know the exact time or circumstances. If that were true, I’m sure you would see a lot more laziness in the ranks. Maybe the end won’t even happen, and Revelations was John’s way of motivating Christians to get off their butt and give themselves to helping the world.
Who knows? I don’t. But I believe. That counts for something to me, even if you think it’s stupid.
Hey woah I’m hardly being hateful, I just expected to have an open minded, intellectual discussion. I am simply offering to talk within the limitations of your world view, on subjects that may be a little more interesting that what other people think. And I have never said believing is stupid.
So Armageddon might be just a white lie to keep us busy and concerned about the future. And here we are, possibly on the brink of WWIII and the outcry is once again “Look at the signs!” “It’s the end!” I can see that. Same with the second coming, I suppose. Keeps up the hope. Heck, If it makes Christians nicer then it works for me.
The Christian who is not nice should hardly be able to call himself a Christian, in my opinion. There are many times that I have to remember what the term “Christian” means – “Christlike”. Christ never condemned homosexuals or called people names. In fact, he loved those that the world despised.
ps I apologize if I mischaracterized your comments. I’m just getting a very anti-Christian vibe from this site lately and it’s possible I’ve become a bit defensive.
Jeremy, I think it may be a little unfair to say this site is anti-Christian. I think that it is mostly a few individuals who are unfortunately portraying that kind of attitude.
Yes indeed Christ embraced the tax collectors and the whores and the lepers, etc. I think that is a very important and interesting subject for Christians today. Unconditional love is a central asset of the religion. We live in sick times and it is tough to decide whether or not and where to draw the line. Take a neighborhood child molester if one would have a child, for instance. To love them unconditionally, and possibly help them heal, (?) one would have to embrace them, say have them to dinner. But that in itself may endanger your child. On the other hand we may look at society’s fear and rejection (often on “moral”grounds) of AIDS patients. Completely unwarranted, due to the necessities for transmission. No significant threat to yourself or your family to literally embrace them. Or a third example, how about someone who has just burned you enough times in one way or another (say business or adultry)? Do you just let them walk all over you again and again out of Christ like love? I mean, he went to the cross without a fight. Tough act to follow. Especially when it comes to protecting one’s family.
The best analogy I ever heard regarding loving others and forgiveness is that yes, God requires that we not judge others, that we turn the other cheek and forgive seventy times seven, BUT He never commanded us to lay down in front of the train. You can do both. As I stated in an earlier post, I can and do still love my child after he has stolen a candy bar from the grocery store, but I do not allow him to keep it and I allow him to be punished appropriately so that he can learn and grow. But I never stop loving or accepting him. There is a difference between an individual and his actions.
I wouldn’t begin to say that a parent should not love their child unconditionally for any reason. How about someone who you share christ’s love with who hurts your child? (Say a high member of x church one might belong to) Stop loving them, keep loving them but get them away from the child? Just trying to explore this fine line, a little.
I believe christlike love must require a level beond just “not lying down in front of the train”. Christ forgave the very people who (well, you saw the Last Temptation…) .
Perhaps it is our mortal duty to forgive and love everyone and “let god sort it out”.
Well said.
Do you think there’s any difference between how I love my child as a parent and how our Father in Heaven loves us as His children?
Do you think as a parent, your desire to have your children love each other unconditionally, to not fight and quarrel over their differences of opinion, is any different than God’s desire to have His children love each other unconditionally?
So if we’re leaving justice up to the afterlife, do you tell one child who is beaten (or worse) by another to turn the other cheek and God will take care of it later? Certainly I would want my kids to just get along, but then there is reality.
I think there is a huge difference between morals and civic justice (isn’t that why we have a separation of church and state in our constitution?) As in: if someone punches you, morally you should forgie them … but in the interest of public safety and maintaining law and order, the State will deal with them according to the laws of the land. “Render what is Ceasar’s unto Caesar …”
So, in the case of homosexuality … it is not up to you to decide whether it is moral or not, because it is commanded of you to love them and care for them. It is up to the civic law body to decide whether homosexuality and homosexual marriage is a threat to the law and order of the land.
Our nation is so confused right now because we cannot separate personal moral and religious belief with the duties and responsibilities of the lawmaking body.
So civic duty is to let the cops deal with it when violence occurs toward oneself, and moral duty is to let god deal with it.
And it is not up to oneself to morally judge a child molester that may harm your child, but the civic body should decide if they are a threat or not.
OK. I like that, then I don’t ever have to think.
And thus the whole reason for religion… so people don’t have to think for themselves. So they can put things off for “god to decide” later.
Amen to that, outty!
You will all burn like marshmallows and hotdogs on the devil’s pitchfork if you don’t start only talking about religion as good. Enough with the questioning.
Wow, that is one long, drawn out discussion, as it always is when you open the “religion” can of worms. It’s sad that people can’t simply agree to disagree, isn’t it. Someone once said “more people have died in the name of religion than in all of the wars combined”, and I believe that is probably true. I’m no knocking religion here, don’t get me wrong, just giving my perspective.
Why can’t more people realize that their “religious” behavior is 180 degrees off of whatever God they are trying to emulate? Berating someone because their beliefs differ from yours are not very Godly, but it happens all the time. Spirituality, as was mentioned somewhere above, fleetingly, is a much more important issue, and gets very little airplay. Spiritual people don’t care what religion you practice, they’re happy with their choice, and that’s all that matters to them.
It’s true, and I’ll reiterate it, we are all praying to the same god, be it a God, Goddess, several gods, earth energy, aliens (yes, aliens). I believe we make the whole thing way too complicated, but that’s my belief, if you don’t share it that’s ok, and that’s the whole point.
Here’s a new idea that I’ve been kicking around as I have this discussion with various people. Don’t be mad, don’t think I’m a horrible person, it’s just an observation.
How many people that you have talked to about their “religion” act mortified that you would even suggest that they are wrong? The won’t talk about it, they won’t listen to anyone else’s opinion, and they are visually uncomfortable with the whole conversation. That leaves me to wonder why a religion would want to be filled with people who only practice said religion out of fear of retribution? Do they want avid believers, or superstitious (sp?) weaklings? After a few of these conversations, I can see why one of the posters above is an atheist.
Personally, I haven’t made my mind up about my faith. I’m leaning towards a pagan/wiccan belief only because their gods seem to have a sense of humor. I can’t live every day believing in a higher power that wants me to live in fear and ignorance, I don’t think that’s why we are here.
If you truly believe in your religion, live it, love it, breathe it, that’s your right! But if you don’t for heaven’s sake, find another one, evaluate how you feel, don’t stay in the confines of your group out of fear! A truly loving God would want you to grow, not stagnate.
That’s my 2 cents,
**braces for scalding combacks**
Thanks for the laughs, everyone.
Archy – I didn’t say that we didn’t have to deal with moral issues, I state that moral issues were of a spiritual nature, and order issues were of a civic nature. I happen to believe the words of Christ, who fulfilled the Jewish law by say “I will forgive whom I will, but for you, it is commanded that you forgive everyone.” Structures like the Cathlolic Church and Mormon Church seek to usurp God’s power and sovereignty to judge and rule by implementing different Earthly penalties for sin and breaking “the Law”. If you read Romans, it is clear that Christ was concerned about moral issues, but above all, was concerned in turning the heart inward when it comes to these issues – first, be concerned about your own salvation, then let the world know about the Good News.
Evangelism seems to have become a synonym for “judging the world” when in reality, Evangelism was originally designed to be a humanitarian mission first (“Feed my sheep”) and a gospel-spreading mission second.
So you all can spout off whatever Richard Dawkins-inspired junk you want and make fun of my religion, because it doesn’t matter to me. You’re not going to offend me, because I’m secure in my beliefs. Maybe it’s your condescending reactions you should examine – what do they say about you?
“A truly loving God would want you to grow, not stagnate.”
That is the problem with EVERY religion… they all claim to know the “truth” and have the answers… and thus by following them, you become stagnate rather than finding answers on your own, and doing your own thinking.
One local religion has used the following statement: “Once the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.” Wow. So my take on that is that we don’t need to think, because this person has already done it for us. That’s a very shallow way to live your life, letting another person think for you.
Sorry, Jplo. I’m not a Dawkins fan. (At least not religion-wise). I can’t possibly think that someone so defensive can be secure in their religious beliefs. It is the holier than thou attitude that bugs me most about your perspective. Perhaps you should reread your initial entry here again, in light of the ensuing discussion. All I was saying in 69 was agreeing with you. Are you selling something? Oh, yes, I guess you are.
Alice Good observations. This is (I think) intended to be a long, drawn out discussion. Spirituality has hardly been a fleeting topic. It began in 24. I have stated multiple times that it is possible to be spiritual without being religious, without asserting that religion was inherantly wrong. Unfortunately, this has been misconstrued as an athiest viewpoint. Since you are willing to speak of other religions, perhaps you will bring some new light to what has become out of necessity a very narrow discussion. An’ it harm noone, do what thou wilt…
My apologies, first off, for not noticing more reference to spirituality. I really couldn’t keep my focus long enough to do more than scan through a lot of the entries. That’s a heck of a lot to read if you weren’t there from the beginning ; )
I do agree that there really isn’t anything wrong with religion, in theory. The only problem is that it includes humans *lol*. I miss the family atmosphere and togetherness that being the member of a religion can offer, but I simply cannot bring myself to make a mockery of someone elses heartfelt belief system by trying to fit in when I find their beliefs laughable. If I don’t believe it, I don’t need to be there.
About the only group that I feel I can relate to are the Agnostics. I looked for a church or group in the area and couldn’t find one. A friend pointed out that due to their beliefs, they probably don’t have a church. Anybody else have any info on this?
I have been reading up on pagan/wiccan religions and use a lot of those as well. I wonder if I could be Agnostic Pagan…
The spirituality topic was, indeed an interesting topic for a while. As to this new question: You could become a nature oriented type of pagan, and not necessarily worhip any god/goddess with the underlying understanding that Paganism originated (some 25,000 yrs. ago) out of a basic human instinct to create higher powers to help out in the hunts. The basic practice at that point was to practice sympathetic magic, spearing clay animals to ensure success in the hunt. So if you would choose to practice an agnostic form it would entail rejecting a lot of the history of your chosen religion. I recommend studying the histories of any religion above the basic tenets before making such choices, any day. And better to be undecided than choose a religion on a whim.
This may seem a little off topic, but I don’t think so -
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment
on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most
benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2.From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage ”
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million;
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.
Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare…” Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental
dependency” phase.
PS . If the Senate grants Amnesty and citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodbye USA in less than 5 years.
Inside Observer, your comment was better published as it’s own article! Those are some interesting statistics, and I’d like to hear more. I also really appreciate the democratic life cycle stages. (I’m really into meta stuff.)
I strongly encourage you to take your comment and make it an article. The discussion that would result from it would be better focused in response to itself than getting diluted in this thread.
Agreed. Interesting, but exept for the brief references to spiritual faith, hardly topical. More political than religious.
So would anyone like to continue discussing religion/s?
My point was that history has shown when we lose our spirituality, our society goes into decline and then implodes. I realize it looks very political on the face of it, but don’t lose sight of what is the first trait that is lost – spiritual faith.
Plus it is just simple history, and all religion has history, just like anything else.
I’d like to make an observation about religious history.
I hear some people condemn various religions because of their history, the Catholics because of the Inquisition, the Mormons because of polygamy, etc.
In fact I believe every religion has skeletons in their closet. Every religion probably wishes they could change an aspect of their history. Those mistakes were made by humans who wanted to do the right religious things but were in error for whatever reasons.
I liked the South Park episode where a Mormon kid moved in, the kids learned about the LDS religion, found some things they didn’t like, and in the end the Mormon kid admitted there may be some skeletons in their church’s closet, but the church was focused now on making stronger families and doing funner stuff, and told the South Park kids to *#@)$ ($*!*&.
That’s great! I’m going to look up that episode! Does anyone else notice how “spot on” South Park is?
Love it…
I do have to agree that historical mistakes shouldn’t deter you from your religion. Some of the origins of religion seem to be worse than any skeletons, but if it works for you, I don’t think you should care, just like the South Park kids ; )
Life’s too short to find reasons not to be happy instead of just being happy.
That would be #712, All About Mormons. Yes, indeed. It’s interesting how many cartoons are making better commentary than the regular commentators. They make me happy even when I’m offended.
My god can beat up your god anywhere, anytime. So bring it, sucka.
OK not so productive but for someone who really didn’t care about this forum in the first place, exept as a buffer to keep religious discussions out of the other forums, I’ve sort of taken a liking to seeing what people’s views are and if they are capable of discussing them. I guess we have lost Jplo which is too bad – I could talk about tying my shoes and he’d be like “WHAT?? Christianity is NOT stupid!!” – but despite the inability to respond directly to statements, he provided a good Christian viewpoint to this discussion. Oh, well. Not fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
I thought Joe asked a very interesting question in 9:
What’s the difference between faith and superstition?
Isn’t faith just believing in something even if you don’t have evidence?
I think these questions merit more discussion.
Interesting comment. In the same sentance, you criticize me for being overly sensitive to insult, then insult me. I wonder what you were going for. My guess is shock value.
I haven’t been responding because this discussion had turned into me responding to everything with the same points, which were never refuted so much as dismissed.
So anyway, it seems pointless to me to respond, but I’ll take on your last question anyway, as witless as I may be.
Faith is a misunderstood concept in Christianity. In sunday school, I was taught that it is similar to believing that the sun will rise in the morning – we have no reason to believe this is true, save the fact that it has risen every other day and we have come to trust this and take it for granted. I never really thought about it, but this is a great example of what faith means. In the old testament, God commands us to challenge our faith, and to love our God with all of our heart, mind, and soul. That is, to love God not only emotionally, not only spiritually, but intellectually and educationally as well.
So, faith is not simply believing in a God that we cannot prove, but believing in God because we have a relationship with Him, then trusting Him to lead our lives and guide us. The existence of God wasn’t the original context of faith when the bible was written, it was an utter reliance on God.
It’s like if I have faith in my car – I don’t have faith that it exists, I have faith that it will run when I turn the key, that it will move when I press the gas, etc.
What I was going for was to keep a discussion alive, and apparently I have succeeded.
So without interrupting with a response at this point, I would ask you to continue, please and contrast this faith with superstition.
Good to have you back, JPlo.
Superstition: n. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
So, faith is a trust in a God that we believe has revealed Himself to the world, and through us, through outselves. Superstition would be an irrational (illogical?) connection of one or more events based on fear (of chaos?). Taking an ultra-cynical view, we could argue that my belief in God (what has now been dubbed “faith”) could be considered superstition because my belief in God stems from my own personal experience … BUT (here comes the main difference) my faith is not based on ignorance or fear (which would redefine my faith as superstition) but on knowlege and love. I have studied my religion intensely. I have searched and pondered and challenged and struggled with my beliefs, and in the end, I have concluded that my religion (my superstition) has a certain truth value that I cannot deny.
Here is where the argument becomes a bit … metaphsyical. What is the difference between superstition and religion? Nothing, really, when it comes to the truth of things. This is because words and definitions only carry the meaning which we attach to them – for example, I defended my religion with a definition of faith, a definition of superstition, and a juxtoposition of the two to favor my beliefs. But, in the end, these things are what they are. Our redefining definitions and rerouting of understandings really doesn’t matter when it comes down to it.
You have conditioned yourself to relate “religion” with “superstition” (thus your question), and so, your definitions are going to favor that “bias” (for lack of a better word). My definintions will favor my bias. Our conditions influence our understanding of our discussion. So, we are speaking foreign languages, and we will never understand eachother.
So, I believe in God. I believe in Christ. I believe in a life that has brought me real happiness and peace. So what does that matter to you? Why is it that I should even bother trying to bring up definitions and logical arguments? It’s all really just Greek to you, isn’t it?
(I should note that it is in my heart that all people everywhere should experience my Jesus in the way I have … but if you are unwilling to consider His truth, then I will not strongarm you. My dismissive language in the last paragraph was not an admition of defeat or an act of aggression, so much as an honest exchange of ideas.)
Um, it wasn’t my question. It was Joe’s. Maybe you should jump his sh*t instead of mine. And for about the millionth time, I have never claimed that Christianity was false or even that I personally do not believe in Christ. I am simply waxing philosophical about some basic Christian ideas and you are taking that personally. Interesting that in thinking it through, you decided that there really is no difference between superstition and religion, though.
I expected some sort of separation.
But hey, when your car doesn’t start one cold day this winter, just faith it into working.
Okay, so maybe you should take a moment and re-read my response. I was not jumping on your sh*t – I was bringing up a point that your definition of “superstition” is just that – yours. It’s not a solid, concrete absolute thing. It bends and molds to cultural norms and redefinitions.
So when you ask what the difference is, it is nothing and it is everything. “Religion” really only means what it does to whoever is interpreting it. To me, religion means something entirely different than it does to you, than it does to a man in Isreal, than it does to a child in China. But what it means to someone else doesn’t really mean anything to me – what matters is what it means to me. Understand?
It’s simple semantics – you’re asking what the difference between these two things are, but the difference is undefinable.
Now, your last comment highlites the reason I let this discussion go in the first place. You don’t care to know more about my religion, or the next person’s view. You just want to mock it. You want to make yourself appear more “enlightened” than the next guy. That is the reason I will not be responding to this discussion until it takes a major turn – I simply don’t care to give you that opportunity anymore. If you want to be a smart—, do it on your own time.
I have to say I agree with what Jeremy said in the last comment.
Archy, you are coming across as only being interested in mocking religion and stirring up controversy.
Why not have a more productive conversation elsewhere?
Very well. It’s just that when I read the first comment here, I thought perhaps I was dealing with an open mind. You have proven otherwise. I will leave you to discuss on tour own terms topics which you are comfortable with in strictly the ways in which you are comfortable discussing them. My appologies for thinking.
There you are again, playing passive-aggressive! You insult me and call me closed-minded, but what do you really mean? You mean that I’m not willing to disclaim my beliefs? Is it closed-minded to reject atheism? If that’s the definition, then count me in.
It’s not right to call me closed-minded in this case, Archy. I’m calling that right now. I am an open-minded individual, and I think I’ve proven that enough on this site. However, when it comes to someone trying to get me to discredit my religion, I’m not that open, I guess.
You asked me a fairly direct question to which there is no real direct answer. I call that not playing fair.
I find it funny that you assume so much about me. You assume that I have always been Christian and have only studied Christianity … but that is so far from the truth … but you will still have your assumptions, I guess, and I can never change that. And no, that doesn’t make you closed-minded.
okeydokey, maybe a change in subject is due.
anyone read the TIME magazine article on megachurches and being rich?
“Does God Want You To Be Rich?
A growing number of Protestant evangelists raise a joyful Yes! But the idea is poison to other, more mainstream pastors…”
“Free it was given to you, and freely you shall give it.”
When did we forget that?
Yeah, that’s a quote against wealth or riches or overabundance, etc.
The article was interesting because they presented about five bible quotes that seem to support riches and about five that seemed to be against riches.
If I remember i’ll past them in here.
Hard to say the intent with conflicting messages in the bible?
While I try to find those, what are we to make of conflicting messages in the Bible?
When my daughter was investigating different faiths, she went to one church where the pastor stated that we aren’t here to be happy. If we’re not miserable, we’re not living God’s commandments. She left.
What happened to “men are that they might have joy”?
How do you all feel about that statement?
The Mormon Church is spending over 1 billion dollars tearing down and rebuilding the Crossroads Mall in SLC. I’ve heard that ranking church officials and their families can live in the high rise plush condominiums that will tower over the new mall. Is this in keeping with what a tax exempt church is supposed to be all about?
A church that proclaims to be a charitable organization and yet gives only 1% of its income to the poor is certainly not one that
Christ would be pleased with, to say nothing of the IRS (concerning their tax exempt status).
I’ve read that Joseph Smith had a large statehouse build in Nauvoo, Ill. for himself and three generations of his “noble” offspring. It was to be on the scale of a palace and intended for entertaining nobility and heads of state. So is this building in SLC just a carryover to the audacity shown by their founder? Or is the worry over diminishing convert numbers and the decreasing tithes forcing this church to depend more heavily on cattle ranches, prime commercial real estate and other business ventures to keep the bottom line intact? When do we stop thinking of them as a religion and realize that they are but a well organized pyramid scheme; a multi-level marketing scam selling God? Members who have paid their dues and shown an acumen for expanding that bottom line are rewarded with a share of the spoils at the top of the pyramid. The beehive seems an apropos symbol for their organization, the queen and her entourage at the top with all the honey and the drones at the bottom working hard to keep them fat and happy. Kinda makes it a little easier to see what David Koresh was hoping to build up in his own little kingdom down there in Waco.
meso may want to check the information. The information I read said that the LDS church is not using tithing funds or state tax funds to build this. They are using the real estate company owned by the LDS church (that does pay taxes) for the developement. The reason for the development is to beautify this area and draw more people to downtown Salt Lake City. Sounds like someone has a chip on their shoulder.
Re: comment 101;
That post encompasses everything that I feel is wrong with organized religion today. If we are put here to be miserable, we might just as well form a mass bridge-jump right now, because there’s not point to hanging around. Instead of using religion as a lifetime guilt trip to keep control over the masses (if you don’t believe that, read some history), why can’t it be used to better everyone’s lives? What a waste of power.
Maybe some people can believe in an angry God that would give so much and not expect it to be partaken of, but I can’t.
My God’s a happy God, I guess that makes me weird.
Hey, Magazine Guy,
Yes, I suppose I do have a chip on my shoulder. It was put there by the above mentioned corporation masquerading as a religion and putting themselves in direct competition with legitimate businesses.
Scan back to my post (#18) for more insight as to the chip on my shoulder.
Once again this thread seems to have deteriorated into “let’s bash the mormon church.” It seems to me that we have many wolves in sheep’s clothing throughout all religions. We have valiant young men and women dying in Afghanistan and Iraq because fanatics have cloaked themselves in the shroud of religion so that they may satisfy their evil natures. We have only begun to recover from the scandal that rocked the Catholic church after priests molested children and were then protected by their superiors, who used the monetary power of the church to thwart justice. There’s Jim Jones and David Koresh and Jim Baker and millenia of other names who have masked their evil desires under the guise of “religion”. I learned long ago not to blame the churches for the behavior of one of its members. There are literally millions of people throughout the world, members of a thousand churches who seek to serve God, and do it quietly in spite of those who move among them wreaking havoc who suffer from the stigma of having one of the wolves in their midst. I think we pick on the mormons because they are the dominant religion in our area, but don’t kid yourself. There are some rather awful people in other churches in our area. I guess I would just ask why when someone of a non-mormon faith does something awful in our area, don’t we trumpet the church they belong to? We have the plumber who drove drunk, and the secretary who embezzled funds and the firefighter who committed arson, but it’s the “mormon” who did ____ (fill in the blank).
Of the 100+ comments offered under this topic, the above (#106) by Inside Observer is by far the most logical, respectful and reasonable. In our “live and let live society” most of us wouldn’t dream of criticizing personal decisions made by a fellow citizen; where he chooses to live, what he does for a living, whom he chooses to marry. Least of all would or should we criticize the religion he chooses to follow or criticize him choosing to be agnostic or atheist. It’s fine by me! Such decisions are none of our business. He will live by the consequences of the choice, not me.
Puritans, escaping religious persecution, founded this great nation. The Constitution insures that that basic right will be protected.
This religious topic has spawned many comments that get precariously close to religious persecution and that’s not right in a country that makes room for all.
…why put others in a category or judge other simply by what we choose to belive, thats retarded, why do we judge others by what they wear or how much money they have, where they choose to hang out. We are all lost, we have no clue what church is true, and to be honest I know we have good intentions but is that all we have? Why not help each other out so we have what it takes to make sure our children are safe, our grandchildren have more oppertunities than we had when we were kids? We are still fighting against God and through out history he said “Keep my commandment” and yet we refuse to do so. WHY? It is recorded in the BIBLE and THE BOOK OF MORMAN that those who refuse GOD and refuse to keep the commandments their lives will be no more and their names will be blotted out. Those who live in faith, keep the commandments, and pay respect to GOD and give him thanks that he will bless you. I dont think it matters what religion you are, if you KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS and JUDGE no one that you will be successful in your own life, not that it will be easy because the devil plays part in EVERYONES lives. Dont think that just because you are mormon or catholic or any kind of christian that GOD is on your side and the DEVIL is not, He plays againts anyone that has anything to do with GOD. IT doesnt matter what religion you are. YOU are still going to struggle, you will still have doubts, failures, death, and personal growth. There is a better understanding of life if you know that there is someone bigger than all of us. Faith is knowing that when we experience troubles trial and afflictions, that we will be ok, we will become stronger today than we were tomorrow. I believe that GOD exists, and he doesnt make it easier on us, that is our choice, God helps us make decisions that will better our lives, better our choices, and gives us something to look forward to, IF WE HAVE HIM ON OUR SIDE. Being mean or hating someone cause they have different views on something is totally not what Jesus or GOD wanted. We are here to help each other out, to strenghten each others weakness, provide them with care and love and respect no matter what they lack. I believe that is what any church is about, People do not go to church because they are perfect, church is a place where imperfect people go to remind them of what they want to achieve. So if someone has wronged you because they are a member of a church that you dont agree with, its wrong to discriminate against that church because of one of the IMPERFECT MEMBERS………
This is fun to FINALLY get to discuss religion with my local neighbors instead of all the far away friends I have on the internet. I honestly have seen some very skewed views of Mormonism here, but that’s not a crime. So, I am new to this board, so I will read the comments as I can and comment on them.
Best,
Kerry
P.S. Some would label me as a Mormon scholar. I would rather label me an interested student in pretty much everything…….But I can argue, and present evidence also.
JeremyPlo said:
So, faith is not simply believing in a God that we cannot prove, but believing in God because we have a relationship with Him, then trusting Him to lead our lives and guide us. The existence of God wasn’t the original context of faith when the bible was written, it was an utter reliance on God.
Kerry says:
Ah, the LDS scholar, Blake Ostler has just written the first two books of his trilogy, “Exploring Mormon Thought” (2004, and 2006, over 1,000 pages thus far) and what you propose here is his proposal, only in the most astonishing in-depth and broadly written texts I have ever read (and I read voraciously).
I agree with you fundamentally that it is the relationship with God that is the all consuming prime important aspect of religion. The really cool thing is that I have one of the strongest, most profoundly insightful, intelligent, intellectual spiritual Mormon scholars to back me up – GRIN! I enjoy keeping good company ya know…
Best,
Kerry
JeremyPlo:
In reading Revelations, it’s clear that we’re not supposed to know the exact time or circumstances. If that were true, I’m sure you would see a lot more laziness in the ranks. Maybe the end won’t even happen, and Revelations was John’s way of motivating Christians to get off their butt and give themselves to helping the world.
Kerry Shirts:
I totally agree with your sentiments Jeremy. They come from a good heart.
Oh and hey…. have you read Margaret Barker’s new book “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”? It is a most interesting look into the book of Revelation, who it was meant to be addressed to, etc. I was rather interested in having so many new insights into the whole shebang on page after page after page…… She’s a prominant Methodist Minister in the UK, and has about 11 books to her credit. A stimulating look into the scriptures, one highly recommend.
Best,
Kerry
Someoe quoted this comment:
“I love GOD I just hate his fan clubâ€
Kerry:
A rather bird-brained view. To hate is to mock God, is it not? Especially in light of what the scriptures teach. But then of course, perhaps the scriptures don’t mean anything to us either. In which case, a study of the enlightened people on our planet would be helpful, because none of the truly intelligent, enlightened people hate anyone or anything……
Don’t be against anything, be FOR something. Wisdom from “The Secret.”
Hey Kerry,
You quote Blake Ostler as an LDS scholar and say that others consider you a Mormon scholar. I am seeking answers from you scholarly types on some rather thorny issues I encountered when studying your religion. Perhaps you might enlighten me by answering a few nagging questions:
1. How was it possible for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian scrolls that he purchased from a traveling Egyptian (mummy) side show? Later Egyptologists (remember the Rosetta stone) found those same scrolls to contain nothing more than pagan funeral script, with no mention of Abraham.
2. Why does your church now say that the Hill Camorrah in upstate N.Y. is not the actual place where the Nephites were defeated by the Lamanites in a final great battle? Now they are claiming that the real Camorrah is yet to be discovered somewhere in Central America. Which is it? Could it be the complete absense of any archaeological evidence at the N.Y. site that has changed their story?
3. DNA testing of Native Americans has shown no kinship to Middle Eastern ihhabitants. The LDS Church has backed off their contention of Semitic origins for Native Americans but still claims that an, as yet to be discovered, tribe in Meso-America harbors those genes. Which is it?
4. Why does one not hear about becomming a god anymore? Pres. Hinckley, on CNN’s Larry King show said something to the effect that he wasn’t sure where that idea originated. I remember hearing the little ditty, “as man is now God once was, as God is now man may become” everytime I was in an LDS Church in my youth. Why is this no longer applicable to the faith?
5. Brigham Young, for whom two universities are named, preached that Adam was actually God, who came here to populate the world with His seed. He also taught that “blood atonement” or the shedding of blood for various sins was the only way apostates and other sinners could hope to get into heaven. If the LDS Church really believes that God is unchanging (Alpha to Omega), then why aren’t these doctrines still being preached from the pulpit?
You say in your post #109 that you have evidence and can argue. I would be very interested in your responses to the above queries.
Question four always nagged me too – when I was a Mormon youth, we were taught all the time that if you were good enough, you became a God in your own Universe. I remember a speech once talking about “little Yahweh” as a child in his mortal life and how we can become like him. Essentially, the goal for Mormon adherence is attaining Celestial glory, correct? And isn’t a part of this glory to become God?
I have just read through both transcripts of the Larry King interview with Gordon B. Hinckley (one from 1998 and one from 2004 – google them and you’ll find the transcripts), and I find no question or reference to the issue of becoming a god or Pres. Hinckley’s denial of it, so I don’t know where meso is getting his/her information from. I’m no Mormon scholar, but I believe that we can inherit all the the Father has to give us, and that our goal is to become like him. When and if we do become like him, then I guess you can consider that being a God/Goddess. For Jeremy, this is still being taught – it is not doctrine that people shy away from. Again, I’m by no means a scholar, but I am a believer.
Julie,
I would have sworn I saw this on Larry King but I cannot find it in the transcripts either. One quote from the San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, in an answer to the question, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?, has GBH answering: “I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.”
Julie, past presidents of the church may have preached this but the church definitely is shying away from this and other doctrines that your parents and grandparents were taught. The age of Neo-Mormonism is upon us. When is the last time you heard in church that black skin was the mark of Cain and that all people of color (including Asians) were less than valiant in the pre-existent battle between good and evil? These things aren’t taught anymore, they have no place in Neo-Mormonism.
Hi ya Meso. I shall take one question at a time, if that’s all right. Your #1 was – 1. How was it possible for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian scrolls that he purchased from a traveling Egyptian (mummy) side show? Later Egyptologists (remember the Rosetta stone) found those same scrolls to contain nothing more than pagan funeral script, with no mention of Abraham.
Kerry:
It was possible through revelation. That’s what the eye witnesses said. I happen to enjoy readig and researchig the experts, but I also admit, I have rarely seldom found them to ever have the last word on things. Does that help?
Best,
Kerry
My thought on ALL faiths (including atheism) is – you can use your faith to improve yourself and your world or you can use it to further your own self-interested agenda.
My biggest problem with Mormonism is and always has been – the members feel a need (based on their beliefs) to convert me to their faith.
I HAVE a faith already and I am quite pleased as punch with it. Missionaries used to frequently stop by my home unannounced and attempt to discuss faith (private business). When I politely say “No thanks I’m not interested” they respond in various ways – the most noteworthy being “Don’t you CARE about your eternal soul?” A close second in audacity was “Do you not love yourself enough to care what happens to you after you die?”
Answer to those questions (and others which are a lot like them) – “That offends me”.
Point two (closely linked to point one). Hypocrisy in vast abundance. Those of us who are not Mormon are expected to respect the beliefs of those who are, but they feel little need to respect our beliefs – if they did – they wouldn’t send nice young men to our doors a few times a year every year until one of us calls the local bishop and says “put me on your ‘do not contact’ list please”.
I understand that witnessing and attempting to glean converts is part of their particular faith thinking, but “no” means “no” – it does not mean “then you must not care about your soul” or “well then we’ll leave you alone until next time” or “maybe the next two will be able to convince you” or even “okay for now then, see you next year, have a nice day”.
I know about the LDS faith (even though I have never been a member). I understand the doctrine, the base of faith, the belief in Jesus as a savior. I’m not ignorant of what I’m missing – I am certain I am choosing wisely for my own soul’s needs.
I have chosen to not be a member for my own personal reasons – and many missionaries want me to share what those reasons are. I ask all if they would really like to know my reasons, one pair insisted they did – so I shared, kindly, politely, and honestly. When they left they were angry and astounded @ my thinking.
How would they enjoy it if they were minding their own business in their own home and I showed up one day @ their door – sharing my faith choices with them (which would most likely OFFEND them just as their forced-upon-me views offend me). How would they feel if, when they rejected my attempts @ converting their thinking, I had the temerity to suggest they must not care about their own eternal souls?
Those who expect freedom of faith for themselves have a responsiblity to allow others the same freedom. That’s my longwinded point here today! Mormons are instructed to go out and find converts – those who WANT to hear the message of missionaries. Does their faith suggest that they are to continue to hound and harass those who don’t? If that’s in their teachings then they might need to take it up with a civil liberties representative. Religious freedom means FREEDOM to choose whether we want a particular religion – or not.
Jesus said “the kingdom of heaven is within”. I’m not a Christian but I am still permitted to interpret that. I do it thusly – all the riches and love and eternal blessings you seek can be found right here, right now, right inside your own self. You can choose to use it wisely – to grow, to challenge yourself, to love, to have purpose and meaning. Or you can choose to hurt others in the name of saving THEIR souls.
The choice is yours.
Jeremy and Meso have good concerns about this interesting doctrine of God in Mormonism.
“Essentially, the goal for Mormon adherence is attaining Celestial glory, correct? And isn’t a part of this glory to become God?”
Kerry:
Yes this is one of the goals of all true Christians. It certainly was a true and representative doctrine of the early Christians, such as Clement, and even some Hermetical writers such as Heraclitus, whom Clement also quotes (in his Pedagogus – “the Instructor”, and also the Stromata) to the effect that men are gods, and the gods are men.
The scriptures certainly teach this doctrine as well.
I also would add the Biblical scholar Alan Segal’s ideas that when Paul uses the word “transformed” (Romans 12:2), it means much more than just a renewal. This is a transformation from one state to another, which suggests “a mystical reformulation and immortalization process, which was discussed in contemporary Jewish and apocalypticism and pagan spirituality.” (Alan Segal, “Some Observations about Paul and Intermediaries,” Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins, Feb. 4, 1988, p. 7)
Segal further notes that the language Paul uses in Philippians 3:7-11 “is not merely that of analogy or imitation; it is that of transformation, metamorphosis, from one state of being to another, in which he has become the same substance as Christ through his death.” (Segal, p. 8).
“The term transformation was available to the ancient world to designate the experience that we might call conversion, but they call transformation because it involved the gaining of immortality and changing one’s form.” (Segal, p. 11).
Philo demonstrates that Moses was deified, thus showing the possibility for humans who experience what Moses experienced, which is the essence of the idea of Jewish Mysticism and Ezekiel’s chariot throne- theophany revelation. (Segal, p. 15).
In the book of 1 Enoch believers come to share the being of the Messiah. The Messiah not only saves but serves as the model for transformation of believers. (Segal, p. 17). Similar to Enoch, Paul understands that he was transformed into a more divine state. He is actually in Christ with his transformation. (Segal, p. 19).
In line with this thought of St. Paul’s in the New Testament, is that of Enoch, where, in reference to the Angels of the Presence, Enoch is installed as a visionary of Sar-ha-panim, which is an identity with his heavenly counterpart. “In 1 Enoch 71, Enoch is transformed and identified with the Son of Man in front of God’s Throne.
In 2 Enoch 22:6-10, Enoch’s initiation into one of the Prince’s of the Presence also takes place in front of the fiery face of the Lord. This encounter transforms Enoch into a glorious being. It is important to note that after this procedure Enoch observes that he had become like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.” (Andrei Orlov, “The Face of the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob,” the extension of this paper will be published in Studies in the Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed., C. A. Evans, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, p. 17)
Based on non-Canonical literature during the age of Early Christianity and Judaism, as well as on the meaning of the word “transformation” as Paul uses the term in the New Testament, the deification of man does not appear to be an aberrant doctrine. Rather it is fundamental to Paul’s theology in his own transformation, as well as many other biblical heroes who encountered the divine, recorded their encounters as proof that Christ, indeed will save us, and we can all become One with God in Christ, i.e. become Sons of God, divinized, as our true potential is indicated in the scriptures.
Another way of looking into the idea that humans can become Gods, because it is God’s will is seen when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to the Mount of Transfiguration, and after they had climbed a high mountain, something amazing happened. The face of Jesus “shone like the sun and his clothes became as white as the light.”1 This account of the transfiguration of Christ became a key text when patristic writers, and specifically the Greek Fathers of the Church, attempted to understand and explain the doctrine of theosis, or salvation as human divinization.2
The transfiguration was interpreted as a revelation illustrating what happens when a human body is divinized, when it participates “in the divine nature.”3
In the words of St. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359), it was a revelation of “what we once were and what we are to be” when deified by Christ.4 These gospel passages were also significant because they so handily encapsulated a number of issues central to the content and experience of theosis: the unearthly light which emanated from Christ’s body, the vision of that light by human persons, the relationship between divinity and humanity, and, at the center of it all, the person of Christ himself.
From the very beginnings of the Church the centrality of Christ has been recognized; he is the one who makes salvation—human divinization—a possibility. Two classic texts which come from the early centuries of the Church clearly demonstrate this belief.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–c. 202)—who had known St. Polycarp, who had known the Apostles5—wrote, “the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, who because of his immeasurable love became what we are in order to make us what he is.”6 St. Athanasius of Alexandria (295–373) also explained that “God became man, so that we might be made gods.”7
Thus, at the root and core of the doctrine of theosis was not only a belief in the centrality of Christ but also the belief that he makes theosis possible precisely because he is both God and human.
Notes
1. Matthew 17:1–8, Jerusalem Bible (hereafter referred to as JB). Parallel passages are in Mark 9:2–8 and Luke 9:28–36.
2. Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, ed. John H. Erickson and Thomas E. Bird (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 60–61; Andrew Louth, trans., Maximus the Confessor (New York: Routledge, 1996), 70–71, 108–9; Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 100, 123; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700), vol. 2 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 260–61; Symeon the New Theologian, The Discourses, trans. C. J. de Catanzaro (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist, 1980), 357.
3. 2 Peter 1:4, KJV.
4. St. Gregory Palamas, Homilies 16, quoted in Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, 266.
5. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching, with an introduction by John Behr (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 1.
6. Robert M. Grant, trans., Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Routledge, 1997), 164.
7. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 54, quoted in Christoforos Stavropoulos, Partakers of the Divine Nature: An inspiring presentation of man’s purpose in life according to Orthodox theology, trans. Stanley Harakas (Minneapolis, Minn.: Light and Life, 1976), 24.
Kerry,
If it were possible “through revelation” for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham, then why did he need his peep stone, and why do you suppose God used a pagan funeral script for that purpose? No, Kerry, there were no witnesses to any revelation that JS may have had. Joseph Smith would have been better served to have claimed revelation on this one but he chose instead to claim a translation of this, (until later) undecipherable document. When bona fide Egyptologists later examined the scrolls they came up with a completely different version from Joseph Smith’s.
You told Jeremy and myself all about incarnation but you danced around the question as to why your church is shying away from the belief that God was once a man and that we can become gods.
I’m still awaiting a response to the other questions also. Perhaps you could respond in your own words as opposed to all your foot notes.
Thanks,
Meso
While we’re @ it (please forgive me if I MISSED this question being asked someplace in the thread – I looked but found it not), why does the “most perfect book” on earth have over two thousand changes? I have a Book Of Mormon from about ten years back and 2 Nephi still has a passage that reads “And as their skin had been white and delightsome, a skin of blackness came upon them and they were cursed”.
I’ve heard several people answer the question. They all so far have sounded something like this – “Heavenly Father reveals thoughts to the prophet, they can change, or maybe they were mistranslated in the first place”.
Since the “most perfect book” on earth isn’t quite so perfect after all (the prophet’s revelations allow it to be changed) then who is to say that next year the prophet doesn’t get a revelation that the whole thing needs a revelation reboot, that what Joseph Smith was supposed to have gleaned from the peep stone was that we should all be tree-hugging vegan hippies who worship Nature Gods and Goddesses and dance naked under the moonlight?
I am serious about this although in light of the last comment some may think I’m not. Missionaries and other church representatives want us to take the Book Of Mormon as “Divine Truth” – but – that divine truth has had quite a few alterations since its first release.
LDS people want us (non-Mormons) to take the faith on its merits – which are said to be revealed in the BOM. You know, the book with over two thousand changes. Yes, yes, yes, I know, humans err and so Joseph Smith could have erred, but that is not what the missionaries tell us. They tell us it’s revealed divine truth.
I’m one hundred percent hunky dorey with people wanting to be LDS – I have NO desire @ all to change their mind, show them how wrong or misguided they are – I do not appreciate people telling me MY faith choices are misguided, so I choose not to do that to others.
I therefore do not write this reply with a desire to change anybody’s mind if they are Mormon. I only want them to comprehend one of the reasons why some of us who AREN’T – aren’t.
Thanks.
Kerry, I have an issue with the concept of the divinity of man for two reasons – one logical and the other, spiritual.
First reason: The bible makes it very clear that God is 1) eternal and 2) sovereign. The concept of God once being mortal negates these two constants, does it not? Think of it this way: if the goal of Christianity is to become a God, then whom are we serving, ourselves or God? Well, the desire to become God-like is known in only one other religion I can think of off the top of my head – Satanism. Satanism is based on the concept of the power of man and the driving will of selfishness. Satanism isn’t necessarily the worship of Satan, but the rejection of God’s sovereignty and therefor, an embracing of Man’s virtue over God’s, correct? So, we have a logical problem: If we understand God as once mortal, and ourselves as merely pre-Godly, then what difference is there between Christianity and any other religion? Doesn’t it all, then, boil down to self-interest? Or would it make more sense, knowing what we do about God, to acknowledge man as essentially lower than God (eternally) and servants to Him (eternally).
Second Reason: If God was once mortal and merely attained Godhood by being a good person, why worship him? Wouldn’t this be just like idol worship of a sports hero or some other such absurd thing? Look at it this way: As Christians, we worship God because he is the ultimate reality, the creator of all things, and the source of eternal salvation through Grace. However, if there is a wider, more spanning reality, what good is there in worshiping God? Who is the God above God? And above him? Is it just turtles all the way down? It seems utterly confusing (not to mention unnecessary) to create this hierarchy of Godhood when one God is all that is necessary for the universe to exist. I know that’s kind of a juvenile argument, but like I said, it’s a spiritual issue, not a logical one.
Kerry,
Jeremy makes a good point. God is eternal. Your own BOM says so:
Moroni 8:18, “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”
Mormon 9:9, “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?”
Is this the reason your church is now shying away from the idea that God was once a man? They have at last realized that they have been contradicting their own scriptures.
Meso:
No, Kerry, there were no witnesses to any revelation that JS may have had.
Kerry:
Yes, there were. Wilford Woodruff recorded Joseph received the BofAbr translation through the Urim and Thummim, and Willard Richards, as well as Warren Parrish who wrote “I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from heaven.” (in John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence,” in “The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter Day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson,” Vol. 1, p. 203). You are simply wrong that Joseph Smith did not have any witnesses of the translation.
Meso:
If it were possible “through revelation†for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham, then why did he need his peep stone, and why do you suppose God used a pagan funeral script for that purpose?
Kerry:
Why does God use gadgets? Why ever use anything physical? Because that’s the world we live in. The Urim and Thummim, the Tabrnacle itself, even the Temple of Solomon is a gadget, yet God uses them because for now we are in a physical plane. Why I have no idea, but who cares why? The point is God has used and continues to use gadgets to further his purposes. Why use stone tablets, as Moses did for Israel if God could simply write his law in all their hearts? Why have a Bible? I can ask as many why as anyone, but where would that get us? Honestly……
Why did God use pagans to build Solomon’s temple? You think Hiram was an Israelite? Why would Christ hang out with tax payers, adulterers, winebibbers, instead of with the church leaders only?
Are you seriously contending that God, the Creator of ALL of us is not interested in anyone but those already saved? Why send the Apostles out then? For all that, why let man fall at all? Why not just save us all quickly without all this pain and suffering to boot?
Asking is terrific to do, but the answers may not please us all.
Gypsy:
Since the “most perfect book†on earth isn’t quite so perfect after all ….
Kerry:
First off, the BOfM is *not* said to be the most perfect book, but the most correct one. There is a huge difference……
As Hugh Nibley noted:
The Book of Mormon claims to be written in “words of plainness”: its meaning is always clear. Joseph Smith at the end of his life proclaimed it the most correct book on earth. Most correct in what sense? The text of Tom Sawyer is far better attended than that of the Bible, but does one conclude from that that Tom Sawyer is a more “correct” book? What is a “correct” book? One with properly cut margins, appropriate binding, a useful index, accurately numbered pages? Not at all; these are mere mechanical details, as are also punctuation, spelling, and even grammar—those matters about which the critics of the Book of Mormon have made such a to-do. Perhaps only a book of science can be really correct in the sense of conveying perfectly accurate information: only here we must remember Karl Popper’s warning: “Every scientific statement must remain tentative forever.” So what is a correct scientific statement today may not be correct tomorrow. The most correct book in the world is the one that will be found to contain the fewest untrue statements after all the books in the world have been checked and compared.
Meso:
Jeremy makes a good point. God is eternal. Your own BOM says so:
Moroni 8:18, “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.â€
Mormon 9:9, “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?â€
Is this the reason your church is now shying away from the idea that God was once a man? They have at last realized that they have been contradicting their own scriptures.
Kerry:
The church is *not* shying away from anything. Blake Ostler has dealt with these issues in his two new books. I will look ito them and get back with you in a few days. I honestly have a math test I have to take tomorrow night. Then I am free for a few days to get into this with you all. GREAT discussion, thanks!
For Jeremy and Meso to ponder while I do my homework and take my test on Monday night……
Is Jesus Christ immutable, unchangeable, or as you put it Eternal? Is he Plato’s “that which always is and has no becoming?” or necessary Being that cannot change with regard to his existence, nor can he change with regard to his mode of existence, and therefore could never be anything other than he was from eternity?
It is inconceivable how any being can be a son and not have a beginning as such. Whatever of eternity may be ascribed to the existence of the Lord Jesus, he must have had a beginning as a son; that term implies a relation, let it be brought about how it may, and that relation must have had a beginning. While there may never have been a time when Jesus was not in respect of his existence as an intelligence, there must have been a time when he was not as “Son.”
So that he doubtless became “Son,” hence changed his relation from not Son to Son; hence changed in his relations, in his mode of existence. We know there was a time when he was not man, that is, not man of flesh and bone made of the materials of this world; and he became man; another change.
There was a time when he was mortal man, by which I mean, man subject to death; and he became, and is now, immortal man; another change. There was a time when all power in heaven and in earth was “given” to him; (“Matt. 28:18) hence, there must have been a time when he did not possess it; hence another change, a change from the condition of holding some power to that of possessing all power.
These facts attested by the Bible and are against your doctrine of God’s eternity or immutability, so far at least as relates to the impossibility of changing his mode of existence. And if your interpretational doctrine of the “immutability” (or eteral aspect) of God means that God cannot change in his relations, then I put these facts in the career of the Lord Jesus Christ against your argument, and say that not only did Jesus pass through these changes of conditions and relations, but that God the Father could, and very likely did, pass through similar relations and changes. Else of what significance are the following passages?
The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise (St. “John 5:19).
The Prophet Joseph Smith quoting the substance of St. John 5:26, also says:
“As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power”—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. “Jesus, what are you going to do?” “To lay down my body as my Father did, and take it up again.” Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible.
It is the accepted doctrine of the orthodox Christian creeds that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is as the Father is—(Creed of St. Athanasius) that is, of the same nature and essence. Very well, then; as God, the Father, begot Jesus, the Son, may not the Son in time also beget a son or sons? Or, after ascribing to the Son the same nature and the same power as is ascribed to the Father, will you insist upon limiting the Son by denying him productive virtue, and contend that Jesus must endure without the exercise of it?
If the existence of the Son was essential to the perfection of God, the Father—and it cannot be thought of in any other light—may it not be, since the Son is of the same nature as the Father, that the fact of fatherhood is necessary to the perfection of the Son?
To deny him the power of attaining it would be to limit his power, which may not be done even according to orthodox Christian doctrine. Is it not likely, nay, would it not be so? that the same cause or impulse, or necessity, or what influence or consideration soever it was that led God, the Father, to beget a Son, create a world, and provide for its redemption, would impel the Son, since he is of the same nature as the Father, to do these same things? And where was the beginning of such proceedings? and where will be the end of them?
This is one of B.H.Roberts arguments in his magnificent book “The Mormon Doctrine of Deity.” Were you to seriously desire to understand, this book is very necessary to get and comprehend.
Hi Jeremy,
In my Ante-Nicene Fathers collection of texts, I found this for your consideration.
Clement of Alexandria, in “The Pedagogus,” (The Instructor, one of the three great books he wrote, the other two being “The Exhortation to the Heathen,” and “the Stromata”), taught that the “greatest of all lessons is to know one’s self. For if one knows one’s self,he will know God. And knowing God, he will be made like God… but that man with whom the Word dwells… he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like God; he is beautiful; he does not ornate himself: he is beauty, the true beauty for it is of God; and that man becomes God since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, ‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’”
In “The Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. 2, Fathers of the Second Century, p. 271…..
If it was a good doctrine for the early Christians, who felt it the “will of God,” why do you label is something it isn’t, namely “Satanism”? Knowing man is god is called “beautiful” by Clement, not Satanic. You are apparently very far removed from the early Christian doctrine and understanding.
I’ve never heard of a Tom Sawyer fan who knocks on doors and expects the people inside to take the story as Divine Truth – so whether Tom Sawyer is the most correct book on earth doesn’t even come into play. We were never asked to see it as such, @ least nobody I know ever was.
Kerry,
You still haven’t answered why the translations of Egyptian scrolls were completely different; the Joseph Smith version and the completely different version by the experts in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Wouldn’t that have set off an alarm in most thinking people’s heads as to the authenticity of this scam artist’s works? Wouldn’t a conclusion that JS faked the translation, thinking that no one would ever be able to do a real translation, be more credible than a story that God uses “gadgets” like pagan funerary scripts to inform his prophets? C’mon now Kerry, you’ve got to do better than that.
I can’t wait to see your response to the DNA question.
Regards,
meso
Kerry – you’ve given me a lot to think about. Let me marinate for a bit before issuing a reply to your comments.
However, I found issue with your reply – you didn’t seem to address the concept of the sovereignty of God. I understand early church doctrine taught that man may become “Like God” through the spirit (an especially Gnostic belief), but they did not go so far as to say that God was once Man and that Man may become God of their own created reality. I have read a great deal about the divinity of man, mainly inspired by the Gnostic words of Christ and even a few cherry-picked parts of the Bible (“Be ye therefor perfect …”) but none of these things seem to point to the reality that God was once Mortal.
Now, this leads me to another head-scratcher in your reply – mostly, your take on the nature of Christ. I should note here that I am decidedly bewildered regarding Christ as to whether He was God, the Son, mortal, immortal, or whatever. So, I am going to have to choose my words here very carefully. Here goes. Okay, with your logic regarding Christ, you make a few assumptions:
- – - It is inconceivable how any being can be a son and not have a beginning as such. Whatever of eternity may be ascribed to the existence of the Lord Jesus, he must have had a beginning as a son; that term implies a relation, let it be brought about how it may, and that relation must have had a beginning. While there may never have been a time when Jesus was not in respect of his existence as an intelligence, there must have been a time when he was not as “Son.â€
Here, we have a clash of doctrines. I will cite the Nicene Creed vs. Mormon Creed. Nicea declared that Christ was “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;” (you very accurately cite this in your reply), however Mormon doctrine assigns him a far less “Godly state” – in James Talmage’s “Jesus the Christ”, he makes it very clear the church’s stance on Christ; That he is a creation of a God of Flesh (see D&C 130:22), not immortal, and just another outstanding creation of an essentially non-eternal (had a beginning) God.
I use these two examples because they represent two very different, indeed polar-opposite views of Christ and, actually, of God. The early Christian establishment made no distinction between God and Christ, while modern Mormons go so far that God made Christ, and that God was once made, and his god before him made, etc.
Now, I’ll remind you that there is much I still need to learn about Christ and the nature of God, so I’m trying to choose my words carefully.
The assumption that you make is that He was the “son”, as in a begotten, created entity – or you seem to imply at least in your language that He may have been of the substance of God, but “changed” in order to come to Earth. So essentially for the purposes of our discussion, are we assuming that Christ is immortal, God, the Son, or mortal (a prophet)? You seem to accept both, but I have a problem with that stance.
Look at it this way – if you accept the words of John, you will undoubtedly conclude that Jesus was God. (“In the beginning the Word was with God, and the word was God.” “I and the Father are One!” “I AM!”). If you believe the Gnostic gospels, you will undoubtedly believe that He was mortal. If you believe that Mormon doctrine, you will surely believe that Jesus was mortal and the literal, physical son of a God of flesh and bone.
So I guess in order to reconcile what we believe about God, we should first decide what we know about Christ – which, as I’ve already mentioned, I am not entirely ready to do. I do, however, tentatively accept that there is one God, eternal, who was not created and is the ultimate reality. I have had no compelling argument that would have me believe otherwise.
[ps] I, too, am interested to see a reply to the concept of DNA evidence negating the Mormon doctrine of a migrating Jewish people – if indeed this concept is incorrect, doesn’t it seem to imply that the rest of the Book of Mormon may be fatally flawed? Or perhaps should we understand this concept in Mormonism like we understand Genesis, as allegorical?
Jeremy:
but they did not go so far as to say that God was once Man and that Man may become God of their own created reality.
Kerry:
Whoa thar Nellie! No one said we become god(s) on our own created reality. This is done through the power of Christ and His atonement. You are interpreting things incorrectly. Meso has been reading too much anti-Mormon lit (I can tell by his tone, and the way he asks questions) to be helped, me thinks, so when I get back, I shall discuss some things with you, and perhaps with Meso if he/she can keep it to a dull roar instead of calling Joseph Smith names. I have better things to do with my time than deal with ninny name calling as if that produces facts. I am enjoying your posts. Keep level headed and away from polemics and things remain lots more enjoyable as we learn.
And, just so you realize, the compelling features I have concerning the Mormon doctrine of Deity *is* the scriptures…..we just have to realize what they say and mean…….. I shall return in a bit.
There is SO MUCH DNA materials on the net, it is sheer lazy not to research for yourselves, honestly. Google FARMS, then search their site, there are hundreds of pages to read. Is there any compelling reason one can’t do their own research, and not have to reinvent the wheel, again, for the umpteenth time? FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) also has a large database concerning DNA, and its fully searchable.
Here is one link of many to the FARMS website on BofM and DNA…… they deal with it much better than I have or can at this point – enjoy!
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=601
Best,
Kerry
Jeremy:
while modern Mormons go so far that God made Christ, and that God was once made, and his god before him made, etc.
Kerry:
I challenge you to show me where Mormons teach that God *made* Christ. And that God was *made.* This is a characature at best of our doctrines. You must not have listened very well in church when you were Mormon bub.
Meso:
You still haven’t answered why the translations of Egyptian scrolls were completely different;
Kerry:
Not yet, but I certainly demonstrated with sources that your assertion, without any evidence, that there were no witnesses to Joseph’s translation of the hieroglyphics was patently false. One issue at a time, since I have no desire to run down every little rabbit trail with you.
I also would expect, if you are honestly trying to understand, rather than merely trip up others, for you to do some studying for yourself. I see no need to do your homework for you. I shall read the sources you give me, if, and only if you also show the same courtesy and read the sources I provide for you. Many of mine are very easy, since they will be online.
Best,
Kerry
Regarding the nature of Christ and God:
“Mary, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a half-Deity. No other man in the history of this world of ours has ever had such an ancestry-God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin on the other. . . . Jesus lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal” (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, 10).”
Obviously, what we have here is a smoking-gun of Mormon Doctrine – that Christ was the result of a Godly intercourse with a mortal, producing (“making”) a half-god, half-mortal Jesus. I don’t see any other way of reading this. It lines up with the readings in the book of Mormon – which teaches that both Jesus and Lucifer were children of God (“made” by God) and actually brothers!
More on Christ, according to Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”:
“Christ is . . . the Only Begotten Son . . . of the Father. . . . Each of the words is to be understood literally. ‘Only’ means only. ‘Begotten’ means begotten; and ‘Son’ means son. Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers”
This makes it very clear, at least in my reading. We are to take from this that, according to Mormon Doctrine, Christ was the result of regular biological processes. So, if Jesus is half-Mortal, the result of regular biological processes, then we must believe that it is the Mormon stance that God indeed had intercourse with Mary, producing Jesus. In other words, God “made” Jesus, correct? I am straining here, but I cannot find a hole in my logic.
Further evidence of this concept comes from Orson Pratt’s “The Seer”:
“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of husband and wife: hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father”
Again, it’s plainly stated here that there was sexual relations between God and Mary, according to Mormon Doctrine, and this argument goes so far as to wed Mary and God for the time of their intercourse. Am I misreading this?
From Joseph Smith on the nature of God:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see”
Again, unless I am dramatically misreading this, it is plain that Joseph Smith is saying that God was once man, overcame sin, and became exalted, and became Elohim. Is this incorrect, as far as the reading goes. I have found no reason to believe I am taking this quote out of context or any such thing.
Now, let’s tie this in with our discussion regarding the relationship between God and Christ:
“Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation.”
This was taken from the first section of “The Gospel Through the Ages”, pretty standard Mormon doctrine, correct? So, it’s written very plainly here, Jesus (and his brother, Lucifer the Devil called Satan) is a creation of God.
Kerry, I very much respect your devotion to the Mormon religion, and I hope it makes you happy – but I find it troubling that you are denying these very basic concepts in the church. Much of my sources come from celebrated Mormon apologists and scholars. So, if these concepts are solid, then they should be owned by the Church, not skirted. I cannot respect a church that shies away from controversial subjects – in fact, the Christian church was utterly rejected by mainstream Judaism because of its teaching that Christ was the Messiah. I will not judge the church for claiming these things (though I reject the church personally for it), but skirting the issue is not going to help in the debate.
[ps] I do not mean this post as an attack on the church or a criticism. We can debate that in private at a later time if you wish, but I am simply trying to crystallize exactly what we are talking about here. I hope we can continue with the same civility that we have dealt with thus far.
Kerry:
I checked your FARMS article, but I think your claim that it will be useful in clearing up the DNA evidence debate was misleading. It basically stated what most of us already know – that more than 99% of DNA studies (most done by tribes themselves) show that Native Americans were linked to Asians, not the near-East. I fail to see how this negates the points that Meso brought up regarding DNA evidence.
I do, however, agree with the points made by http://www.religioustolerence.com – there is a distinctive lack of evidence surrounding many other religious concepts, namely Adam and Eve, Moses, and Abraham. So perhaps we should stop trying to “prove” our religion with science and instead allow science to observe our world and believe on our religion using our capacity for faith.
Kerry,
I understand your reluctance to delve further into explanations about your faith. Leaving it to the paid apologists from FARMS is probably prudent on your part. These guys are the pros. FARMS apologist Raymond Swenson, who also prosyltizes on the op-ed pages of the local paper, is admitting to biological evolution, although not the Darwinian version. He says it’s God’s tool for creating diverse species.
Mormonism too, is evolving at a feverish pace in an attempt to adapt to its member’s increasing knowledge (often via the internet) of natural phenomena and factual historical events. The nineteenth century views and long held beliefs of past church leaders have become an embarrassment to many educated Mormons and declining convert numbers reflect further disenchantment. No longer do bishops and/or missionaries offer Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine”, to church members or perspective converts. It just doesn’t jibe with the Neo-Mormonism being espoused, not from the pulpit, but from aplogists like Swenson, who put a modern spin on church theology.
There are internet Mormons and there are the old guard who still believe every word of their favorite apostle, McConkie, and his colloquial renditions of Mormonism (the 6000 year old Earth, etc.) Apologists offer diametrically opposing views of Mormonisn to those of past presidents and apostles.
The current church president (prophet, seer and revelator) admits that revelation is a nebulous thing and that his inspiration comes mainly from sessions of meditating with his counselors. Is this then to be the new face of Mormonism; doctrinal changes by hired mouthpieces and quietly adopted by church leaders, or will it be explained somehow from the pulpit, as divine revelation? Just wondering…
Meso – I’m not sure where you’re taking this conversation is healthy for our discussion. Surely you can direct your same comments regarding Mormon apologists to Christian apologists, Buddhists, etc.? I assume you would, knowing your view of religion as a whole. However, you’re forgetting the role of the apologist – to explain one’s faith to an ever-changing, dynamic world. One of my favorite apologists is Ravi Zacharias, who runs the “Let My People Think” podcast that I am so fond of. To me, Ravi takes these biblical concepts and puts them into the context of our modern world so it’s easier for me to understand what the bible is trying to say (the allegorical rather than literal sense of the text).
Perhaps this is what Mormon apologists are trying to do – though I can hardly fathom an apologetic method for justifying Blood Atonement or the concept of Celestial Exaltation.
I think we’ve made it abundantly clear that both you and I disagree and do not believe in the Mormon Church. We should, as the opposition, strive to keep the discussion as civil and non-personal as possible.
Jeremy,
It is the LDS Church that I am most familiar with. It is the LDS Church that expects 10% of it’s parishioner’s income. This pyramid scheme is exacting a heavy toll in our community and it should be exposed for what it is. I have family members who are both at the top and the bottom ends of this pyramid (deceivers and the deceived). If those at the bottom end would have used the same due-diligence they use in the stock market before deciding on this belief, then they might have made wiser decisions. Unfortunately when your parents have you baptized at age 8, you assume they have already done their due-diligence. The children in this “religion” are as *** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *** as those Muslim children we see on the evening news who wave swords and chant “death to America”.
Jeremy, where and when do we break the cycle? If we are not to be free to discuss these matters here, then where? Where was the public outcry at Waco about David Koresh before his demise? His kingdom was small in relation to Joseph Smith’s kingdom at Nauvoo but they had much in common. They both lived off the sweat and toil of their parishioners, they both took on multiple sex partners from their congregation and they both were convinced of their absolute power over their followers.
Maybe you’re right, Jeremy. These views may not be appropriate for a discussion on religion. Maybe they should be moved to another thread, perhaps one on… *** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *** and How They Originated.
Meso:
I understand your reluctance to delve further into explanations about your faith.
Kerry:
Not only do you misunderstand Mormonism, but also my reluctance. My reluctance is dealing with someone who has no other interest than to harass, as opposed to discussing and learning. If we can have intelligent discussions, then I am all for it. Calling Joseph Smith a con artist is subjective ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *******. I have not been reluctant for over 15 years of internet discussing.
I will, however, take it one step at a time. I noticed you have continued to ignore your assertion is false about no witnesses to the BofAbr translation through revelation, but instead opt to bring out everything at once, again, all by mere assertion as if you saying it makes it fact – GRIN! In all good time. I have seen all your arguments and have discussed them all in the past. If we can keep it on an intelligence level, I am willing.
FARMS incidentally is not paid apologists nor professioals for the church. And you haven’t dealt with anything they have yet either. I shall be thoroughly surprised if you are capable, I have seen very few who are.
Best,
Kerry
Meso:
Maybe you’re right, Jeremy. These views may not be appropriate for a discussion on religion. Maybe they should be moved to another thread, perhaps one on…Modern Day Scams and How They Originated.
Kerry:
***** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *********
Jeremy:
I checked your FARMS article, but I think your claim that it will be useful in clearing up the DNA evidence debate was misleading. It basically stated what most of us already know – that more than 99% of DNA studies (most done by tribes themselves) show that Native Americans were linked to Asians, not the near-East.
Kerry:
I think I didn’t say it as clearly as I should have, sorry! Must be those Idaho French Fries I’ve been eating – GRIN!
THe FARMS site has an enormous amount of materials on the DNA issues. That article was just one of them I found quickly for you to browse. You can do a search of all their materials from the site, a rather nice feature of theirs. Hope this helps.
Jeremy:
I do, however, agree with the points made by http://www.religioustolerence.com – there is a distinctive lack of evidence surrounding many other religious concepts, namely Adam and Eve, Moses, and Abraham. So perhaps we should stop trying to “prove†our religion with science and instead allow science to observe our world and believe on our religion using our capacity for faith.
Kerry:
Interesting link. Yes, I have rather thought that Stephen Jay Gould’s (one of my very favoritest Evolutionary Scientists I love to read) book “Rock of Ags: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life,” Ballantine Books, 1999, and his elaboration of the NOMA principle is the best way to go. Non-Overlapping Magisteria, that is leave science in her compartment with her things to do, and religion in hers with her things to do…
What is refuted via science in Mormonism, is also going to shatter Christianity. That is, if one accepts science as the final and last say so of all things, which I don’t, though it’s doggone fun to read!
Science is always tentative forever, and none more so than the mere recently birthed DNA science so many tout as having had a final sayso on so much of religious texts, which it doesn’t.
Best,
Kerry
Jeremy:
you didn’t seem to address the concept of the sovereignty of God. I understand early church doctrine taught that man may become “Like God†through the spirit (an especially Gnostic belief), but they did not go so far as to say that God was once Man
Kerry:
Um, yes they certainly did teach this, and precisely in those words. Clement taught it exactly that way – Clement of Alexandria, in “The Pedagogus,†(The Instructor, one of the three great books he wrote, the other two being “The Exhortation to the Heathen,†and “the Stromataâ€), taught that the “greatest of all lessons is to know one’s self. For if one knows one’s self,he will know God. And knowing God, he will be made like God… but that man with whom the Word dwells… he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like God; he is beautiful; he does not ornate himself: he is beauty, the true beauty for it is of God; and that man becomes God since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, *****‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’â€***** (my Emphasis), notice Clement is not destroying a supposed “pagan” argument either, but is saying Heraclitus RIGHTLY SAID………… (not yelling, just emphasizing is all – I wish we had a bold – ing feature in this part of the boards)
Best,
Kerry
In “The Ante-Nicene Fathers,†Vol. 2, Fathers of the Second Century, p. 271…..
Jeremy:
I have read a great deal about the divinity of man, mainly inspired by the Gnostic words of Christ and even a few cherry-picked parts of the Bible (â€Be ye therefor perfect …â€) but none of these things seem to point to the reality that God was once Mortal.
Kerry:
Um, whether its cherry picked or not, that is Jesus Christ speaking there, at least so far as it is recorded correctly. I personally can’t find much higher authority in this universe than Christ, are you actually saying he didn’t mean what he said? Why would he command something that is supposedly impossible? That’s rather silly isn’t it?
The Savior invites humankind to “Be ye therefore true [or 'complete'] as your Father which is in Heaven is true [or 'complete'] (Anchor Bible, Matthew 4:48.) The Greek word “teleioi,” from which the King James translators derived the word perfect, has various synonyms. Besides bearing the notion of being complete, the word also carries the meaning of being mature. This maturity comes to the initiate who becomes “pure in heart” (Matthew 5:8)
It is possible for us to become perfect like God, or the Savior would not have commanded it. It is something on which we must begin here and now, or the Savior would not have commanded it. It is not an impossible goal because the Lord will command nothing of the children of men save he shall prepare the way whereby they may accomplish it. (1 Nephi. 3:7. )
If you ask, How can we achieve such a thing? Is perfection possible? In some ways perfection is possible right now. Right now God expects perfection on the part of all of us in respect to certain things. Everyone of us can be 100 per cent perfect in keeping the commandment which says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Everyone of us can be 100 per cent perfect in keeping the commandments which say, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness” Everyone of us can be 100 per cent perfect in decisions we make of what to do and what not to do.
Everyone of us can be perfect in the regularity in saying our prayers, night and morning, and bless our food at each meal. Everyone of us can be perfect now in many ways, and we are to begin now. It’s something we can begin to do now. And the Lord expects us to carry on.
How are we going to accomplish it all? He gives us another commandment, which is quite as important as the others:
. . . Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33. )
We must not let anything interfere with it.
To become perfect like God, the way is to “Seek first the kingdom of God,” knowing that all other necessary things will be added unto us. We are also told, you remember, to Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth . . . But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven . . . (Matthew 6:19-20.)
As I understand the scriptures, it is through the Atonement, that is the power to make us “perfect in every good work to do his will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ” (Hebrews 13:21).
The process of spiritual renewal and growth is accomplished by an infusion of divine power. Paul therefore explained that God the Father “hath made him [Christ the Son] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21; compare Philippians 3:8-9).
We could call this “the great exchange.” Jesus Christ came to earth on a search-and-rescue mission in search of lost sheep.
He came to earth to find us and then to change us—to change our hearts, our desires, our very lives. But there is more. He came to exchange with us. In Gethsemane and on the cross our Lord took upon him our sins.
He offers to convey to us—to put on our spiritual account, as a part of our eternal assets—his righteousness.
To be justified by Christ is not simply to be forgiven of our sins, as critical and important as that is; it is to receive from a gracious Savior his goodness, his righteousness, his enabling power, his perfection. Thus we become “perfect in Christ” (Moroni 10:32). Same thing is taught in the D&C, as the vision of the glories shows, those who qualify for celestial glory are those designated as just men and women “made perfect” through Christ’s perfect atonement (D&C 76:69.
Anyway, I have a ton more I can share, but no need to overdo it eh? lol……. be good,
Best,
Kerry
And no, I am not going to concentrate on Meso, I am ignoring him. I enjoy Jeremy’s intelligent and wonderful discussions and questions much more, so I won’t worry or focus about the person in the future.
Best,
Kerry
I wish we had a bold – ing feature in this part of the boards
We do, just surround your text with “strong” tags – a left bracket (< ), the word "strong" and a right bracket (>) to start, then a left bracket (< ), a backslash (/), the word "strong", then a right bracket (>). Like this
The quote above is emphasized (italic, in most browsers) because I put “em” and “/em’” tags (again with < and > around it.
Mr.Shirts, I was just wondering why would you ignore Meso and his comments? Are his questions getting a little difficult to answer or is it rather you realize you can’t sway his opinion or views? It’s extremely rare that someone is going to change their feelings on a subject such as religion, especially when it comes from a chat board. People are set in their ways when it comes to this topic and for the most part refuse to budge. Just as you are with your Mormon beliefs and just as Mastervodo is with his atheist beliefs. You want people to “open their minds” and discuss your beliefs, yet when somebody else has a point of view that is different than yours, you won’t open your mind to it. You’d rather ignore him than listen to his side because, like everyone else, you’re set in your ways regarding religion.
I like sitting back and reading all the discussions on this topic, seeing people quote the bible, quote authors and share their own beliefs. Most people believe what they believe, not because they started out at a young age with an open mind and looked at BOTH sides of the coin, but because of what they grew up with. I’m willing to bet anything that the majority of the people on this board believe what they believe because that’s what their parents or other major influence taught them and/or in some way instilled upon them as a child. (Aside from one poster here who was once a Mormon and then changed his religion because he REALLY opened his mind to other points of views.) I’m not saying one religion is better than the other, and I hope it doesn’t come off that way, that’s not my intention. Only that the majority of posters here will not sway in their beliefs, no matter how many authors you quote or scriptures you cite.
Regardless, very interesting post I must say.
Kerry,
Sorry to hear that you’re going to ignore me. So much for your post #109, “But I can argue and present evidence too”.
Kerry, your convoluted argument that equated a pagan scroll to temples and tabernacles as “gadgets” was only surpassed by your great one-liner in post #117. Mentioning experts, you said, “I have rarely seldom found them to ever have the last word on things”.(sic)
Best regards,
meso
Kerry: re: Attaining perfection
I guess we have a rift in our belief structure then. It’s interesting to note that Judaism and Christianity, while both steeped in the same traditions and beliefs, took radically different approaches to religion (the same can be said of Islam): Orthopraxy and Orthodoxy. The first, meaning “correct practice” the latter meaning “correct belief”. It was a Jewish belief that correct practice of one’s religion is the key to attaining perfection, while the Christian belief was that correct belief (Whosoever believes in me …) is the key.
I have noticed that Mormonism focuses mainly on the concept of Orthopraxy, perhaps because of the assertion that Mormonism is stemmed from the Jewish migration to America?
So, perhaps, the bridge between this rift is not in doctrine or logic, but in the concept of Grace? I know that Grace is not regularly taught in the Mormon church as it is in mainstream Christian churches, but entertain me for a moment – perhaps it is not so much about correctly practicing one’s religion or believing the correct doctrine, but relying on the sacrifice of Christ for salvation, rather than our own volition? I should note here that, at least at this point, this is my mode of thinking regarding my Christian faith.
A great book on the subject is The Ragamuffin Gospel (the author escapes me at the moment) – the thesis of which is this: God, being perfect, is impossible to impress – in fact, we should suppose that God, being omniscient, has seen all and known all, so what can we do to gain His favor? Nothing but extend our hands and accept the gift of salvation through Grace. If you want a great afternoon read, I’d highly recommend this one.
Now, back to our current debate regarding the past mortality of God: I have read, time and time again, your citations regarding Clement’s take on immortal perfection – but I fail to see how his assertions regarding the perfection of mankind link to God’s past mortality and His ascending to Godhood through Orthopraxy. This is the root of my question, perhaps not so much my own doubts about those who practice correctly becoming Gods (which, I should re-state, I doubt).
Hi Jeremy,
The doctrine of Christ is that everything he is, the Father is. What Christ did is oly what he has seen his Father do. Everything that pertains to Christ, pertains to the Father. If Christ emptied himself of his glory and even set aside his divinity (as per the Bible), it is because, as he taught in John he saw his Father do so, and follows his example.
Christ is certainly God. God emptied Himself to take on the form and features of a servant, in order to raise us to His own level. That is how I would understand the Father (and now the Son) to have once been a mortal man.
While God the Father was a mortal, there was still a God (as per the rest of the Godhead, namely Jesus and the Holy Ghost) running the universe. At least that is how I understand it. I will bring out more of Blake Ostler’s materials as he discusses these aspects also.
Best,
Kerry
Snackpak:
Only that the majority of posters here will not sway in their beliefs, no matter how many authors you quote or scriptures you cite.
Regardless, very interesting post I must say.
Kerry:
I agree. And no I don’t think Meso’s arguments and thoughts are insurmountable. I rather enjoy talking to Jeremy more is all. I am sure as we get along in the discussion we shall have recourse to discussing all these things. THen Meso can see some answers. Nothing with persuade him though, of course. It’s just nice to see there are answers to things…..
Best,
Kerry
Kerry said: “Christ is certainly God.”
I’m trying to avoid contention here and not to be confrontational, but haven’t you essentially rebuked the very essence of Mormon theology – that is, that God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are three separate, sovereign beings? I have read many of Joseph Smith’s accounts of his vision and visitation, and this seems to be the only constant, really – three separate persons, each with a physical body.
Now, if God and Jesus are separate beings with physical bodies, how, then, can Christ be God? I should note that I am inclined to believe in the divinity of Christ, but as I mentioned before, I am not 100% sure of anything when it comes to my religion. But for the purposes of our discussion, then, it seems as if you are conceding in the falseness of basic Mormon doctrine, correct? Or are you prepared to argue the fact that Mormons do not indeed believe that there is a Godhead of three individuals? I seem to either not follow your argument or am jumping to conclusions if this is not your point.
No, I don’t think I am contradicting a Mormon doctrine, but I might be, so I will have to watch it – GRIN! Christ is God as the Son of God, so the scriptures teach, and the prophets testify, and I believe. I think there are a few Mormon comments on this that are powerful, if I may share them with you. I honestly think the overall grand vision and understanding of the Restoration is breath-taking! Truly I do. I have seen nothing else like it to match it.
“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises. He said: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am sat down with my Father in His throne” (Rev. 3:21). The Apostle Paul also taught in this wise: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philip. 2:5-8).
This is the high destiny of the sons of God, they who overcome, who are obedient to His commandments, who purify themselves even as He is pure. They are to become like Him; they will see Him as He is; they will behold His face and reign with Him in His glory, becoming like unto Him in every particular. (Lorenzo Snow in the Collected Discourses of the Prophets – 1886-1895, Vol. 5)
This from James E. Talmage, (Conference Report, 1915) According to the spirit of the revealed word, perfection is rather relative than absolute. Though a man become perfect in his mortal sphere of activity, he is by no means perfect as gauged by the standard prevailing in heaven. As the Prophet Joseph said to the Church in early days, so now says the Church unto the world—if the heavens could be rent, and you could see the Eternal Father sitting upon His throne, you would see Him like a man in form.
That the Eternal Father has called Himself a Man is plainly apparent in the testimony of Enoch the Seer; and in the same scripture Jesus Christ is designated “The Son of Man” even before the time of the flood; “For in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is His name, and the name of His Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ”, (“Moses 6:57; compare 7:24, 47 and 54). In a certain revelation to Enoch, the Eternal Father thus spake: “Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name. Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.” (“Moses 7:35). Thus does the light of modern revelation illuminate the dark passages of old.
The doctrine of the relationship between God and men, as made plain through the word of revelation, is today as it was of old, though in the light of later scripture we are enabled to read the meaning more clearly.
It is provided that we, the sons and daughters of God, may advance until we become like unto our Eternal Father and our Eternal Mother, in that we may become perfect in our spheres as they are in theirs. That grand truth, taught by the Prophet Joseph and ridiculed for the time, has now gripped the minds of the thinkers and philosophers of the age. You will find it hinted at and timidly expressed in the writings of many recent and learned publications in the theological field. That great truth is finding its way into the literature of the world. It was crystallized into what we may call an aphorism, by President Lorenzo Snow: “As man is God once was; as God is man may be”. We know that Christ is God, and that He lived upon the earth as a Man. In the sense in which Christ was perfect in His sphere, we may become perfect in ours. We may progress, not to become each one a savior of the world in the particular sense in which Christ was the Savior of the world, but we may follow Him to eternal glory, and to eternal life.
B. H. Roberts, one of the finest minds in early Mormonism noted this in his researches (Defense of the Saints, Vol. 2, p. 217): I want to read to you some key-words of this new theology which is making its way among all churches. It is’ not an organized movement. No one appears to know whence it springs. Indeed, it is spoken of as being one of those pulsations of the “cosmic mind” which moves over the people at intervals and proclaims some great truth. Now, you will be astonished at the fundamental truth of this new movement, and the great number of people who are accepting it as the “theology of experience.” Its fundament principle is the recognition of the identity between human nature and the divine nature.
In proof of it, I submit the following passages:
“Whence springs the deep-seated hostility of so man, of the representatives of labor to the churches? It can only be from the fact that organized religion has, in the immediate past, lost sight of its own fundamental, the divineness of man.” (Rev. R. J. Campbell, in Hibbert Journal, April, 1907, p. 487.)
“When the man with a burdened conscience comes to us for relief, let us tell him that we all bear the burden together, and that until he becomes a Christ all the love in the universe will come to his help and share his struggle. His burden is ours, the burden of the Christ incarnate for the redemption of the world.” (Ibid, p. 493.)
“The starting point in the New Theology is belief in the immanence of God, and the essential oneness of God and man. * * * We believe man to be a revelation of God, and the universe one means to the self-manifestation of God. * * * * We believe that there is no real distinction between humanity and the Deity.
“Our being is the same as God’s, although our consciousness of it is limited. * * * The new theology holds that human nature should be interpreted in terms of its own highest nature, therefore it reverences Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was divine, ‘but so are we.’ * * * Every man is a potential Christ, or rather a manifestation of the eternal Christ. * * * The new theology * * * is the gospel of the humanity of God and the divinity of man.” (Campbell, London Daily Mail, quoted in Current Literature, April, 1907.)
“I shall continue to feel compelled to believe that the power which produced Jesus must be at least equal to Jesus, so Jesus becomes my gateway to the innermost of God. When I look at him I say to myself, God is that, and if I can only get down to the truth about myself I shall find that I am too. * * * In him (Jesus) the humanity was divinity and divinity humanity. * * * But you make him only a man! No, reader, I do not. I make him the only man, and there is a difference. We have only seen perfect manhood once, and that was the manhood of Jesus. The rest of us have got to get there. * * * We have to get rid of the dualism which will insist on putting humanity and Deity into two separate categories.
“Unitarians used to declare that Jesus was man, not God.”
Trinitarianism maintained that he was God and man; the older Christian thought as well as the youngest regards him as God in man—God manifest in the flesh. But here emerges a great point of difference between the new theology on the one hand and traditional orthodoxy on the other. The latter would restrict the description ‘God manifest in the flesh’ to Jesus alone; the new theology would extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity, and would maintain that in the end it will be as true of every individual soul as it ever was of Jesus. Indeed, it is this belief that gives value and significance to the earthly mission of Jesus—he came to show us what we potentially are.” (The New Theology, Campbell, pp. 82, 83.)
There is much more to the same effect, which I now pass.
I am now going to read to you from a higher authority than Mr. Campbell—from a man of science, a man whose intellectual powers sway the religious thought of many thousands in Great Britain, the thoughts of many more people than Mr. Campbell sways. I refer to Sir Oliver Lodge, who says in the Hibbert Journal, one of the foremost publications in the world on the subject of theology and philosophy, with reference to the divinity of Jesus, and the identity of the divine and human nature:
“The conception of the Godhead formed by some divine philosophers and mystics has quite rightly been so immeasurably vast, though still assuredly utterly inadequate and necessarily beneath reality, that the notion of a God revealed in human form—born, suffering, tormented, killed—has been utterly incredible. ‘A crucified prophet, yes; but a crucified God! I shudder at the blasphemy,’ is a known quotation which I cannot now verify; yet that apparent blasphemy is the soul of Christianity. It calls upon us to recognize and worship a crucified, an executed God. * * * The world is full of men. What the world wants is a God. Behold the God! (referring of course, to Jesus,) ‘The divinity of Jesus’ is the truth which now requires to be re-perceived, to be illuminated afresh by new knowledge, to be cleansed and revivified by the wholesome flood of skepticism which has poured over it; it can be freed now from all trace of groveling superstition, and can be recognized freely and enthusiastically; the divinity of Jesus, (Mark you—’the divinity of Jesus’) and of all other noble and saintly souls, in so far as they too have been inflamed by a spark of Divinity—in so far as they too can be recognized as manifestations of the Divine.” (Hibbert Journal for April, 1906, pp. 654-5.)
That is the doctrine, gentlemen, that is sweeping the earth, “the divinity of Jesus,” and the divinity of “all other noble and saintly souls”—the kinship of men and God. That is “Mormonism,” and it was proclaimed by the great prophet of the nineteenth century, half a century before these modern minds were awakened to its grandeur and to its uplifting power. I rejoice to see it running in the earth to be glorified, for in it I recognize the very root principle of all religion and out of it grow all the relations that link us with all that is pure, uplifting and divine.
Now, do not misunderstand me. There is much nonsense in this “New Theology;” but this root principle of it is true, and it is in accord with the principles that Joseph Smith proclaimed years ago. The doctrine of the immanence of God in the world, by which we mean the universe and the divinity of man, instead of its having its origin some fifteen or twenty years ago, and now finding expression in the beautiful diction of Mr. Campbell and Sir Oliver Lodge and others, it was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at least over seventy years ago.
Best,
Kerry
Jeremy:
three separate persons, each with a physical body.
Kerry:
A fair statement, just not complete. They are one in Godliness. They are perfectly united in desires, thoughts, actions, etc. What one wishes, they all are in agreement. So far as I understand it anyway.
Great discussion – thanks!
Best,
Kerry
One of the chief difficulties of being on the side of defending, or even simply explaining things is that it takes so much more to do than ask a quick question. A quick question is a sentence. A proper contexted answer can take pages! I am seriously trying to keep this managable, but this doctrine stretches to eternity. I mean that! I am not, not, NOT trying to overdo things or preach or even convert you here. BUT I believe that an explanation is worth understanding, and if it takes a page or two of printed text, then so be it. With that in mind, here is another summary of this magnificent doctrine I find so compelling in Mormonism. There is simply nothing like it, except in the scriptures. No religion picked up on this until Joseph Smith did. It is, I believe, a fabulous mark that there has, indeed, been a restoration of early Christian doctrines, and a restoration of a doctrine of Christ which was lost.
This doctrine of God as man, and man’s potential to become like God is met with the cry of “Blasphemy!” even more pronouncedly than the Prophet’s doctrine respecting the divinity of man. The general conception of orthodox Christendom in relation to God was that he was an incorporeal being, that he was without body; by which they meant that he was not matter; that he was immaterial and without form. They adopted the old pagan idea that God was without parts, without passions; that he was without quality, as a matter of act, if these other descriptions of him were true.
What is the inevitable outgrowth of the doctrines of these professors in our universities, from what was said in part II, of this treatise? It is that there is in man a divine spirit: that man is “God manifested in the flesh.” From this, the question very naturally arises: Do men as such become immortal? Are there any means by which men may become eternal entities—as spirits and bodies inseparably connected—immortal individuals? If so, would they be any less incarnations of a divine spirit in their immortal state than they are now as mortals?
The answer is obvious; and if only it be admitted that man, as man, may become immortal, then the doctrine of Joseph Smith respecting God receives strong support by necessary implication from the aforesaid teachers of the universities; for if it be true, as we now are assured it is by these teachers, that “man is God made manifest;” that “focused in the mind of man are all the dynamic forces of the universe”—then truly it is that such doctrines cannot be far removed from the bold announcement of Joseph Smith, that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.” To make complete the support of Joseph Smith’s doctrines from the teachings of the universities, it only becomes necessary to say that the individual man persists; that he becomes as man, body and spirit, immortal. Let these declarations be made:
The spirit in man is divine—he is an incarnation of God; man will become immortal. Say this and then the whole doctrine of Joseph Smith, both as to man and as to God, receives perfect support from the trend of university teachings, as represented by Mr. Bolce’s papers here being discussed; and there is no escaping that conclusion. Hold to the first proposition, namely, that the spirit of man is divine, then the question resolves itself merely into this: Is there such a thing as resurrection from the dead for man? The Christ answers, Yes; and proclaims himself to be the “resurrection and the life;” and the “first fruits of the resurrection.”
the resurrection of the body marks the beginning of the last but never-ending estate of man’s progress and glory. In God’s own due time, the spirit of man is reunited in resurrection with its earthly tabernacle, and becomes an immortal being. This immortal being is the completed soul of man, possessed of flesh, bone and spirit. Completed in the sense of inseparable unity. But the “race which runs up through the worlds” has only begun in the sense of accomplishment. “As man is God once was,” said a prophet of “Mormonism.” And to that he added, “As God is man may become.” Who then can measure or even imagine the heights to which immortal man’s future accomplishments may reach? “Be ye perfect,” admonished the Savior of the world, “even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” And again, “The Son can do nothing but what he seeth the Father do; and whatsoever He (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” Who can conceive of a greater destiny for man? The Son of God has asked that man shall follow in his footsteps. And he (the Christ) is the while following in the footsteps of the heavenly Father, the great ideal of the universe. How wonderful it is to have part in eternal progress and never-ending accomplishment!
And all these are but a few contributions of what the world calls “Mormonism.”
Possibly the first and most important doctrine we may point to is that concerning the nature of God. The Church offers the knowledge to men that the Almighty has been a man also; that is to say, God our Father is a man in form like ourselves. He is not a shadowy essence or a philosophical abstraction. He is a resurrected, glorified, exalted being with a body of flesh and bones. Spirit courses through his veins instead of blood, because he is no longer mortal. He understands man because he was once like us. Through the eternal ages he progressed until he became God. He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. His power, knowledge, wisdom, and love can only be slightly comprehended by us in our present estate. But it is possible for us eventually to comprehend God and become like him if we keep his commandments:
… nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. (“D&C 88:49)
And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. (“D&C 84:38)
I hasten to point out that the Christ is like his Father. He is in the image of his Father and has received of his fulness. (“D&C 93:4)
In response to a spiritual experience, Joseph Smith saw God and his Son Jesus Christ with his own eyes. He prayed and found the truth—at least the elementary fundamentals—concerning the nature of the Almighty. Moreover, the Lord has revealed much in addition about himself that is to be found in the revelations the Church publishes to mankind. The Mormon people think of God as a loving Father who could actually put his arms about one. He is very near to those who pray to him. Many thinkers not of our faith say that they cannot accept our anthropomorphic or manlike God, but their concepts do not seem to win the affections of the general run of men or, unfortunately, to change their way of life. Sincere believers in God as taught by our Church have the inestimable advantage of receiving the inward testimony of the Holy Ghost concerning him. Only those who have received this testimony appreciate its effectiveness.
Another unchanging doctrine of the Church of great value is that which links man to God. The Lord has revealed that the intelligence of man is self-existent. It was never created. But God did create the spirit bodies which clothe the intelligences of men. In this sense he is the very Father of mankind. He it is who is guiding, directing, and helping his spirit children to progress and become like him. Our sojourn in mortality is a probationary period in the great scheme of eternal progress. What men do in this life will determine in a great measure their destiny in the hereafter. The Church from its founding therefore emphasizes the extreme value of life here and now.
The fact that we consider God the very Father of our spirits means that we have an exceedingly high conception of man. Indeed, man is of royal descent and has dignity and worth. Let me call attention to some statements concerning the supreme value of the souls of men. The Lord said to Joseph Smith:
Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God; … (“D&C 18:10)
… he [God] inviteth … all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)
… we see that God is mindful of every people, whatsoever land they may be in; yea, he numbereth his people, and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth. (Alma 26:37)
Hartman Rector Jr’s discovery of this teaching, as a Catholic, is always interesting to read for me. Here is a non-Mormon’s reaction to this doctrine that I think is worth reading and getting. He was dating his Mormon girlfriend, and they were discussing things religious. His reaction is a stunner, in my opinion.
A few days later she returned the book to me and smilingly said, “I enjoyed the book-parts of it sound as though they might have been written by a Latter-day Saint.” Never having heard that term before, I had to ask her, “What is a Latter-day Saint?” She replied, “I’m one, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sometimes we are nicknamed Mormons.”
From that point our discussions in theology veered sharply away from Catholicism as she adroitly led me into a new search by quoting from Lorenzo Snow, a past president of her Church: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” My spring was unsprung! President Snow had outdistanced Teilhard by a spiritual light-year! His was the most profound set of words I had heard in my life-and all my adult years had been spent studying theology, philosophy, and sociology!
While Darwin spoke of the evolution of the body of man; while Spencer spoke about the development of the family and social institutions of man; while Teilhard spoke about the spiritual evolution of man; here Lorenzo Snow-to me, an obscure Mormon leader of the 1890’s-had taken the teachings of Joseph Smith (which antedated Darwin’s Origin of the Species) and said that not only is man progressing toward deification, but that God himself has gone through this process. What a vision this opened! What excitement shook me! This struck at the heart of my difficulties as a Catholic theologian and sociologist. Snow’s statement went further than anything I had dreamed. I had considered Teilhard as one of the great contemporary thinkers, and here in twelve short words was a vision that eclipsed his farthest reach.
As a seminary teacher at St. Vincent, I had been searching for a way in which doctrine might develop to meet the emerging needs of men rather than stand still. It was in this search that I had discovered the writings of Father Teilhard, who had captured the minds of many intellectuals in France as well as America with his scientific and theological perspectives. The Catholic Church would not permit his avaunt-garde writings to be published, and in fact they were not published until after his death in the 1950’s. He had written about this idea of the continuous development in another book, The Phenomenon of Man. Also, I had read deeply another Catholic theologian, John Newman, in his Development of Doctrine. I had come to appreciate the search for the opening up of doctrine that would respond to the knowledge and development of man.
The central theme of the restored gospel stated aphoristically by President Lorenzo Snow went far beyond Teilhard and Newman. What I found here, I found in every one of the aspirations that was troubling me: the search for a new kind of priesthood, the search for a new kind of worship, the search for a new kind of perspective on man. Here, in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was a vision of man on an ascending, expanding, open-ended spiral of eternal progression. This is dynamic, developmental, as opposed to the static closed circle of organization accepted by prevalent Christian thought.
This explained the inherent but frustrating desire in man to be what he is not yet; the boy to be Superman; the teenager to become a hero; the Greeks and Romans to aspire to godhood; the deification of mortals in Oriental religions. This desire for divinization is inborn in man, then, but it took modern prophets of the Lord to affirm this as revealed truth.
Are we allowed to write novels as reply’s? That took me 20 minutes to read one post.
Makes one wonder how he is going to explain away that troublesome scripture in his own BOM:
Moroni 8:18, “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”
Hopefully not with another, yawn, novel length reply.
Yeah, we don’t have a word count restriction like the PR’s letters to the editor, but when you publish longer than one screenful in a comment, most people just scroll past without reading.
We’re not restricting your word count, but you may want to keep it shorter to be more effective.
Kerry – Well, it seems we’ve reached what you might call a logical and spiritual singularity here. I cannot accept that man may become God, just like I cannot accept that Jesus was a created thing; Not on the basis of scholarly inquiry or logical mathematics exclusively, but on the basis that I believe that the most perfect knowledge we can obtain about God is through His spirit – “Ask and it shall be answered unto you”. I have tried to reconcile what you suppose about the nature of God, Jesus, etc. and I simply cannot, in good spiritual conscience accept a once fallible God, a separation of Gods (singular in thought as they may be), or really any other Mormon doctrine, save the concept of salvation through Grace. I simply cannot do it, and I believe that is divinely inspired. I don’t think that any much debate will change that, though you are welcome to try.
However, I should leave you with a few nagging questions regarding your orthodoxy:
1) If God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are three separate beings, all equal, yet one in desire and will, are we not worshiping three Gods? Are we not embracing polytheism or, at best, a rejection of one supreme God (rather, three of them?)
2) If we are to become “as God” as you state so many times without addressing the real issue, are we not aspiring to the same glory that Lucifer was? Are we not striving for equal glory with God?
3) If God is physical, how could He exist before anything physical existed? I know it’s a hard concept to argue because it deals with the nature of a being that we cannot comprehend, but hear me out. Joseph Smith said that God has a body of flesh – yet the Bible contends that God existed before time and the Universe – before anything of a physical nature existed. How can you reconcile this?
Jeremy:
I cannot accept that man may become God
Kerry:
I realize that. I can and do accept it, so long as it is through Christ we attain the perfection he designed us for.
Jeremy:
If God is physical, how could He exist before anything physical existed? I know it’s a hard concept to argue because it deals with the nature of a being that we cannot comprehend, but hear me out. Joseph Smith said that God has a body of flesh – yet the Bible contends that God existed before time and the Universe – before anything of a physical nature existed. How can you reconcile this?
Kerry:
Easy. This is not the only universe in existence, but the universe God created. A very startling read on the “multiverse” from a scientific viewpoint is the astounding new book by Leonard Susskind, “The Cosmic Landscape,” Back Bay BOoks, 2006.
We’re not restricting your word count, but you may want to keep it shorter to be more effective.
Kerry notes:
Yes I noticed that one of the complainers is also one who writes WHOPPING LONG novels over on the Creationsim Evolution debate, and then just has to complain about reading a mere 20 minutes here, since I largely suspect he is not interested in learning, only in disagreeing, but oh well…… I shall keep things shorter. It’s astounding to me that television has made it so our attention spans for learning is whittled down to a paltry 20 minutes. Then we expect commercials – GRIN! So sad really………
Jeremy:
I believe that the most perfect knowledge we can obtain about God is through His spirit – “Ask and it shall be answered unto youâ€.
Kerry:
Yes, and I see nowhere where he limits what we shall be given if we ask. And it is all to His glory that we achieve the perfection he designed us to achieve, through Him. It doesn’t replace Him, perhaps a reason some so insistently disagree with His wonderful *Good News*…….
Jeremy:
If we are to become “as God†as you state so many times without addressing the real issue, are we not aspiring to the same glory that Lucifer was? Are we not striving for equal glory with God?
Kerry:
Did not Christ inherit *all* that His Father has, and did Christ not promise the same to those who accept him? If we are given the inheritance of the Father, is that not Godhood? Satan’s lie was not that ye shall be Gods, but that ye shall not die. We die, but we also, as we accept Christ, become Christ’s inheritors, as well as the Fathers. I’ll keep this short and sweet, since the Greek analysis in the New Testament of the meaning of this will take a LOT of materials, and no one wants to read it all, at least not in one post.
Jeremy:
If God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are three separate beings, all equal, yet one in desire and will, are we not worshiping three Gods? Are we not embracing polytheism or, at best, a rejection of one supreme God (rather, three of them?)
Kerry:
Like I said in my 20 minute massive post above, it is difficult to defend since thattakes explanation to a question, which ends up being too long, so to keep it short, the answer is no. Deseret Book in the Teton Mall has Blake Ostler’s book (if not you can order it), which discuses absolutely each and every one of your questions in a most exhaustive and astounding way, they [the two of them, three are slated for the series] are only a mere 1,000 pages). At least I can give you a reference for your own perusal. Ya gotta admit, that’s nice of me to do – GRIN!
Jeremy:
and I simply cannot, in good spiritual conscience accept a once fallible God,
Kerry:
Ah……….. but the doctrine does not say God was fallible when he was a man. That is your assumption. Was Jesus fallible as a man in his incarnation? Or was he *fully human* and *fully* divine?
A commenter said:(Aside from one poster here who was once a Mormon and then changed his religion because he REALLY opened his mind to other points of views.)
Kerry: I find it fascinating that the underlying assumption is that we Mormons are *all* in reality closed minded, while everyone else is the epitome of scientific objectivity (chortle) and open minded, and only when one such has this apparently difficult capability, then one sees the truth that Mormonism is false. Has it ever occurred to you that some of us actually believe in Mormonism *because* we are open minded and explore all the options and evidence? Probably not.
Hi Jeremy!
On your question about the teaching that Jesus and Lucifer had once been spirit brothers. Something that is usually ignored when this argument is presented (you really *must* quit going to anti’s to get yer goods on we Mormons, I can tell you have because of the way you present this) Mormons believe that all God’s children were spirit children of God and that Christ was the “firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29 – “prototokon en pollois adelphois,” Christ is “first born” of all creation – Colossians 1:15). Early Christians appear to have had little trouble with the concept that so disturbs you.
“Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like Himself, replete with the virtues of the Father. Later he made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. . . . He was jealous of his older Brother who, remaining united with the father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from good became bad is called Devil by the Greeks.” Lactantius, “Divine Institutes” II, 9, in Giovanni Papini, “The Devil” (New York: Dutton, 1954), 81-82. Papini notes, “According to Lactantius, Lucifer would have been nothing less than the brother of the Logos. . . . The elder spirit, filled with every divine virtue and beloved by God above all other spirits, can easily be recognized as the word, that is, the Son. But Lactantius’s story leads one to think that the other spirit, also endowed with every grace, was the second son of the Father: the future Satan would be no less, the younger brother of the future Christ” (ibid.). Lactantius actually says God called His “first and greatest Son†to be His personal counselor, (i.e., Christ) whilst the other became the accuser. (Lactantius, “Divine Institutes,†Vol. 7: 52-53, of “The Ante-Nicene Fathers,†Eerdmans, reprint January 1979.)
Carl Jung in his magnum opus, “Mysterium Coniunctionis,†(Princeton University Press, 7th printing, 1979: 102) noted that “the opposition between Christ and the devil presupposes an inner relationship (regarded by the Ebionites says Epiphanius as that between two brothers). Angelus Silesius seems to have felt something of the sort too:
Were from the devil, all his His-ness gone,
You’d see the Devil sitting on God’s Throne.
So, with the proper understanding of the theology of both the early Christians, and the Mormons, one sees the supposed shock value of such a discussion actually is minimized. Just thought you’d like to know…
Hi Jeremy,
Oh hey, in browsing further in my library, on this Jesus/Devil are brothers thingy, I find that Carl Jung in his book “Aion” in the chapter Christ, an Image of the Self,” p. 57 (Princeton Univ. Press, 5th printing, 1978) showed that not only the early Christian Epiphanius taught this, but so did the Clementine Homilies. Very interesting this! Michaias, in a dialogue, said that if good and evil were begotten in the same way, then they must be brothers.
Well, I happen to now have the Clementine Homilies, so I looked them up, they are in “The Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. VIII, bunched in with all the Syriac Documents also (a fabulous volume actually!), pp. 341f, where to quote exactly, the dialogue: “When Peter said this, Micah, who was himself one of the companions that attended on him said: I also should like to learn from you if the good one has been produced in the same way that the evil one came into being. But if they came into being in a similar manner, then they are brothers, in my opinion.”
Best,
Kerry
So, are there any other members of the Mormon Church out there who would like to respond to my post #113? Kerry Shirts, director of research for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) for the Mormon Church, has chosen to ignore them. He apparently can’t answer them although he is awfully adept at dancing around them with terribly wordy discourses on everything but the questions at hand.
Perhaps someone from the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), the other propaganda arm of the church, would like to respond?
Still waiting…..
Meso:
Kerry Shirts, director of research for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) for the Mormon Church, has chosen to ignore them. He apparently can’t answer them although he is awfully adept at dancing around them with terribly wordy discourses on everything but the questions at hand.
Kerry:
Now you want others to do your studying for you like you wanted me to? You are also dated, not only in understanding Mormonism, but that I am director of research with FAIR. That’s been a few years ago. I no longer function in tha capacity.
FARMS is not propaganda. It’s research. That’s a huge difference.
Every single, solitary, one of your questions have answers on the *searchable* sites of both FAIR and FARMS. Its quite telling to see you have no interest in really understanding or learning them. This is why I have no time to discss things with you that you can’t understand. You certainly CAN understand your questions with a bit of reading. I know you have the capability, it’s the desire I see lacking in you.
Kerry,
Calling you the Director is kinda like calling former president Carter, Mr. President or Muhammad Ali, Champ. Once you’ve held the title it’s yours forever.
So come on Champ give me your best shot…humor me with some answers to those thorny questions about your religion. Let’s see if you live up to your claim, “But I can argue and present evidence also”.
Still waiting,
Meso
Oh Snap! ROFL!
This debate….err lack thereof is heatin up! I love it!
I already destroyed your mere assertion that there were no witnesses to Joseph Smith translating the papyri via revelation, and I did it with sources to boot. The issue is what is a translation? Is everyone on the same page with what it entails? I don’t think so. By using the word “translation” in one sense, while the scholars know perfectly well that Joseph Smith meant it in another, they create a problem that is a non-issue, then beat the problem thinking they are winning.
The problem here is, there are some things I need to show on *how* Joseph Smith translated and what it meant when he used the word “translation.” Are you up for reading the evidence?
Last time I presented evidence, there were a few who thought it was too long. Yes, it will take a minute to read it, not a mere blink of an eye. Shall I post the evidence?
And will you deal with the subject instead of simply ridiculing the scholars I present, or do you think ridicule is enough to show your ideas are correct? I’ve noticed you have presented nothing in your favor, (other than cutesy smart alec ways to talk, which amounts to nothing except entertaining others. Is thatall you want to do with all this?) only assertions and questions as if those are the answers, which they certainly are not.
Meso:
Let’s see if you live up to your claim, “But I can argue and present evidence alsoâ€.
Kerry:
I already HAVE shown evidence that your assertion was merely wisp in the wind bubba. And I used a scholarly source (Gee has a Ph.d in Egyptology for instance…. that’s far more scholarly than anyone you have presented, which has been exactly zero) to do it. I HAVE lived up to my claim. Your ignoring it doesn’t change that *fact.* GRIN!
The evidence is in post # 126 for your convenience to go back and see that I have backed up my claims – wheeeeeeeee!
This discussion is not heating up. We are just having a good chummy discussion is all – GRIN! If Meso wants to bite off more than he can chew, that’s fine with me. That he doesn’t own up to honestly being defeated in some points is most telling however……..
Mr Shirts, what do you say to people who claim that Joe Smith plagerized many other texts in his process of putting together the book of mormon? ie: Solomon Spaulding and Shakespeare.
And the fact that not one piece of archelogical evidence exists still to this day to support the book of mormon?
AND that the original book of mormon had thousands of typos and misprints, mis-quotes, etc in it and has been revised hundreds of times over the years? What about the original version that said black people were bad and were cursed with black skin by God. But that part was later taken out. I wonder why….perhaps it was because of racism and the civil rights movement in the 70s….someone suddenly had a “revelation” and all of a sudden blacks are equals? Yeaaahhhh OK!
There’s so many flaws in this book it’s not even funny. Yet the Mormon religion and followers still think its the most correct book? Not so correct if you ask me. Seems like quite a few people have been hoodwinked by some snake oil salesman/wannabe prophet!
Kerry,
I didn’t say JS didn’t have any witnesses to the translation, I said “There were no witnesses to any revelations that Joseph Smith may have had”. When I spoke of revelations it was in reference to when he was visited by angels and the Father and Son and I have never heard of that being corroborated by witnesses.
Before you get too hung up on these semantics, it may be interesting to note that when the apostle Dallin Oaks was asked about the apparent fabrication of the BofA by Steven Benson, he admitted that critics of the Book seemed to “presently hold the upper hand in arguments against its authenticity”. He further claimed that it had to be accepted on faith. I left it open for you to do likewise but you chose instead to argue about “gadgets” being God’s tools for his prophets.
But enough of this…as long as you’re not ignoring me anymore, maybe you could discuss some of the other questions I posed. I’m on pins and needles, Champ…fire away.
As always,
Meso
homeslice:
Mr Shirts, what do you say to people who claim that Joe Smith plagerized many other texts in his process of putting together the book of mormon? ie: Solomon Spaulding and Shakespeare.
Kerry:
Honestly bub, all this has been so thoroughly answered. This is the 1970’s arguments and we are in an entirely new millenium. BOTH searchable sites of FAIR and FARMS have many articles on these exact arguments that keep appearing, though with less and less credibility.
I say to those who think these arguments are valid to try and update their knowledge databanks. Even the world’s most FAMOUS anti-Mormon, Fawn McKay Brodie, decimated the Spaulding theory, and that was literally decades ago man.
Best,
Kery
Meso:
it may be interesting to note that when the apostle Dallin Oaks was asked about the apparent fabrication of the BofA by Steven Benson, he admitted that critics of the Book seemed to “presently hold the upper hand in arguments against its authenticityâ€. He further claimed that it had to be accepted on faith. I left it open for you to do likewise but you chose instead to argue about “gadgets†being God’s tools for his prophets.
Kerry:
Would it be too much for me to kindly request a source for your idea about Oaks’ thoughts on this matter? Thanks. I really just can’t take statements like this at much value. Acquiring my B.S. in history has forced me to see the light of the strength and necessity of having the sources, not just claims. Forgive me if that offends.
Best,
Kerry
This is for Meso.
In post #122 you said, and I quote….”If it were possible “through revelation†for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham, then why did he need his peep stone, and why do you suppose God used a pagan funeral script for that purpose? No, Kerry, there were no witnesses to any revelation that JS may have had.”
Kerry now notes:
The context is that of Joseph Smith having witnesses to my claim that he received the Book of Abraham via revelation, and you said there were no witnesses to ANY revelation Joseph Smith has ever had. I refuted you on that, and with a valid scholarly source.
I’m not going to beat this dead horse again, but you seem to me to be wanting to change the parameters a bit in what you may have *meant.* I can’t read your mind as to what you *meant,* but in context, I sure understood what you said. So anyway………. I shall get back with you tomorrow.
I really am tired tonight, big night at school (studying Euler Circuits, most interesting!) and all that sorta jazz, a few hundred pages read in the early Christian Fathers, (Ignatius…. he’s a hoot I tells ya!), some nifty new info in Joseph Fitzmyer’s new revision of the Dead Sea Scrolls “Genesis Apocryphon,” (some materials about Abraham in Egypt, but I am quite sure you wouldn’t be interested since, of course, this brings in Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham, and we simply can’t have THAT! GASP!) and miscellaneous other materials. I’m pooped. G’night.
Kerry
Kerry,
You requested a source for the Dallin Oaks quote attributed to Steven Benson (grandson of former church president ETB).
GOOGLE: Steven Benson Book of Abraham and click on What do Mormonism’s alleged prophet seers and revelators really know. There is also an account of his (Benson) meeting with Oaks and Maxwell on the “Recovery from Mormonism” site as well as his interview with McConkie.
Mr.Shirts, I’ve done my research on the subject. Which is why I’m asking you. You haven’t answered any of my questions, just as you continue to skate around meso’s quesitons. WHERE is the archeoligical proof that supports your “most correct book”? There isn’t any and their never will be.
I’ll make this real simple for you this time. Just answer the ONE question regarding the “correct book” and the black man. You can’t honestly tell me THAT issue was a sham and/or never happened. Why the church’s change of attitude and text in the book of mormon over this issue???
I eargerly await your answer to this one!
Dale R. Broadhurst, a 1965 IFHS graduate has an extensive website that features books, historical documents and first-hand written accounts of Mormon history. Although not LDS himself, he has nonetheless compiled a vast library of historical references on Mormon history. It’s really quite informative. Last I heard, Dale was living in Hawaii but his health was in decline. Anyone interested can find his website by Googling his name.
I am also interested in hearing Shirts reply to #189.
As for Mr Broadhurst’s website: it’s http://www.solomonspalding.com
and is very informative! Perhaps Mr Shirts would like to check it out sometime and see for himself just how many parallels there really are.
As a matter of fact, here is a direct quote from his website (cut n pasted) of just one example:
“When these structural elements are all listed and examined, many are found to be identical (or nearly identical) to elements in the Spaulding episode recounted on MS pages 154 and 155. In addition to these thematic elements, there can also be found instances of identical (or nearly identical) phrasing in the eight Book of Mormon stories and the Spaulding story. What we have before us is not just a case of the Spaulding episode being somewhat like a passage or two in the Book of Mormon, but rather, an example of a ninth story which fits into the pattern of the other eight. In fact, the Spaulding episode fits so well into the pattern that the matter can in no way be dismissed as a casual coincidence”.
Very interesting I must say!
Yes I am very familiar with my good and dear friend Unka Dale as his good friends call him. And he has done extensive analysis of the Spaulding parallels. The other side of the coin is this link with all this research.
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/search.php
It’s more impressive, in my opinion, than the myriads of parallels with words such as “and,” “we” and contless others that mean next to nothing. I can find parallels of this magnitude in dictionaries, but what does it prove?
homeslice:
WHERE is the archeoligical proof that supports your “most correct book� There isn’t any and their never will be.
Kerry:
Is your faith so solid in archaeology that it has to have the last word in things? IS the scripture *supposed* to be archaeologically verified? Why is it so important that this tentative discipline be used as the say all be all? NO archaeologist whom I know, and have read ***ever*** says anything is PROVEN via archaeology. There are plausibilities, and suggestions however.
And if it isn’t here today, how can you so certainly assert (again only your say so, which will be refuted) does that prove it NEVER will be found? Do you even understand the nature of archaeology? Have you not heard how archaeology has changed so much concerning the very foundations of western civilization since the discovery ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls a mere 45 years ago? And there is a LOT more to come forth. What of the Nag Hammadi? Do these PROVE someone’s faith?
Your misguided thinking via archaeology convinces me you have no intention of understanding the very powerful evidences in favor of the scriptures, but then again (HOW MANY TIMES DO I ***HAVE*** TO SAY THIS?!?) both the searchable FARMS and FAIR sites has all kinds of materials in just this field. WHY should I do your homework for you?
Refute some of their evidences. Don’t generalize and say there is nothing found, refute what evidences exist, as say with the numerous articles dealing with archaeology on the FARMS site. You say you have studied. Have you? Demonstrate it then by refuting something.
Best,
Kerry
homeslice:
Why the church’s change of attitude and text in the book of mormon over this issue???
I eargerly await your answer to this one!
Kerry:
You honestly want the church to have continued with its lousy policy of blacks and the priesthood so you could club it about it from THAT angle then? Just who is having the problem here? Why are you so upset that the church HAS MOVED FORWARD and CHANGED? Why is that such a canard to you? Now who is being racist? We change for the better, and you complain about THAT? Surely you jest.
And true to form, FAIR has NUMEROUS discussions and articles explaining, exploring and appreciating the issues.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai086.html
And on the archaeology and Mormonism issues, here also is an enormous amount of materials for you.
http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/search/search.pl?Terms=archaeology&SEARCH.x=14&SEARCH.y=9
So what you’re saying is….the most CORRECT book has to “move forward” and “Change” with the times?? Now THAT my friend is interesting!!! I don’t see the Bible “moving forward and changing” with the times!
Incredible answer! Typical….but incredible!
Surely if it was the “most correct” book, it wouldn’t have to change at all!! Yet it’s changed hundreds of times over the years. Not so correct in my eyes!
Maybe it should be named the most incorrect book ever.
Let’s be fair. Just as with any other religion, the Mormon church has changed drastically over the years – lest we not forget the Christian Inquisitions, Crusades, etc. It is not the book that has changed, not even God that has, but our perception and interpretation of it (and God?). It’s a bit unfair to judge the correctness of a book based on our fallible take on it. I believe that God is constant, which explains man’s varied take on God – we are all subject to the age in which we live and the conditions of our conditioning (great tagline, I know!).
That being said, I’m not defending the Book of Mormon, but if we are to criticize it, let’s not be trivial about it.
I don’t see anybody being “trival” about it. Just people stating facts, comments and opinions as they see fit or feel about them.
Homeslice is right….the Mormon book and J.Smith both believed and stated that black people were infereior and that God made them that way as a means of punishment. Yet 30 years later (which isn’t THAT long in Biblical terms) they change their WHOLE way of thinking.
And this is just ONE instance. There are many more just like this in the BofM.
The point the other posters were trying to make is….it’s not that “correct” or perfect of a book. You don’t see the Bible changing like that.
Belief in God has nothing to do with the facts that are being stated.
“He is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity”, a quote from the Book of Mormon. Apparently God doesn’t change just his doctrines do.
He commanded his followers to live by the plural marriage doctrine until 1890 when he must have changed his mind. His mouthpiece, Brigham Young, refused blacks the priesthood and said the only way they could get to heaven was as slaves. He called slavery “a divine institution”. That all changed in 1978 when He (God) again changed His mind.
For a religion that claims to live by God’s “eternal” principles this seems to us outside observers as a church that will change with every shift in the wind. What was popular yesterday and unpopular today can simply be expunged through “revelation”.
No sir, this ain’t your grandfathers religion. It is morphing as quickly as the spin doctors can quietly inject the 21st Century into a 19th Century institution. Eternal principles are only claimed so when it becomes expedient for them to be so.
The world is hearing much about Mormonism since one of their own has declared his candidacy for president of this country. The church seems to be in a mad scramble to distance itself from its checkered past. Romney may find it expedient to disassociate himself from these folks altogether if he is to have any hope of election to that office.
It’s funny how he “Mr Shirts” asks if the “scriptures” are supposed to be archeologically verified. I say emphatically YES! Look at all the archeological evidence from the Bible and THAT era which happened quite a few years (to say the least) before the book of mormons so called scriptures.
So YES….there should be SOME type of evidence from these tribes, the people, their dwellings…something….ANYTHING?
The little link you provided proved and said absolutely NOTHING about archeological findings from the book of mormon. Oh, it listed some items, 60 items I think it was, but nothing to really confirm they had anything to do with the b of m scriptures, people, cities or time period. It only skated around the issues and questions that we’ve all been asking. And this is a good quote from that link that made me LOL
“does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence?”
If that’s not skating around the issue what is?
It seems that people of this religion have been taught quite well how to “skate around” issues such as these. Everything I read about this religion, gives no clear cut answers to any of the importannt questions asked. Answers they DO give are, “it just is” OR “we just believe” OR “evidence was derived of perishable materials”. It’s all nonsense. They even admit at the end of the page that no, they have no clue where these places described in the B of M were located, BUT it still could be discovered, so it must be true!
And it’s quite obvious that you HAVENT read all of your buddy Unka Dales website. There are hundreds of parallels that are more than “and”, “we” and “the”. Who’s the one whos not doing their research now? There are literally sentence for sentence paralells, paragraphs copied word for word. And your coming up with ONE word parallels? Do some more homework and get back with me.
Guest 778:
It’s funny how he “Mr Shirts†asks if the “scriptures†are supposed to be archeologically verified. I say emphatically YES! Look at all the archeological evidence from the Bible
Kerry:
What has been proven archaelogically about Jesus ever making his triumphal entry? Do we have the bones of the donkey? Do we have proof of His very person being crucified? Do we have any part of the cross, the nails, the blood? What archaeologically has been proven that believing in Jesus saves us?
What archaeologically has been proven that Jesus ever preached the Sermon on the Mount, or healed anyone? Archaeologically what has been proven about the resurrection? Have YOU ever seen one resurrected and immortal from the dead? Hmmm?
What exactly archaeologically has been PROVEN about the Gospel that Jesus taught? What archaeological remains are there of his clothing? Sandals? Cloak? What? PROVE that Jesus even *existed* archaeologically……..
I am seriously skeptical about your claiming the Bible has been proven. What has been? PROVE IT TO ME. Show me your goods. Then I will show you how atheists manhandle your weak evidences.
I’ve tried and can’t show them any proof. Heh…. if the Bible has been so proven archaeologically, then pray tell, WHY are there STILL atheists in the land?
Guest 778:
And it’s quite obvious that you HAVENT read all of your buddy Unka Dales website. There are hundreds of parallels that are more than “andâ€, “we†and “theâ€. Who’s the one whos not doing their research now?
Kerry:
Oh puh-leeeeeeeze! Chortle! You say the links I provide show nothing, yet the ones you have show everything. The bias I say, the bias…… truly astounding.
“if the Bible has been so proven archaeologically, then pray tell, WHY are there STILL atheists in the land?”
I’ll take a stab at this one.
Because they believe that the book was written, but they don’t believe it to be the inspired word of God, because they reject, on a logical basis, the idea of God in the first place. I know of few atheists who would deny the existence of the bible throughout history (save a few conspiracy theorists). So, they accept its existence but reject its importance to the eternal scheme.
I think that you have misunderstood the archaeologically argument. They are saying that evidence suggests that the main claims of the Book of Mormon, especially regarding the hereditary link between the Jewish People and American Indians. They are stating that there is no evidence to support this claim, and therefor sever the link between Jesus’ “other sheep” and Americans. They also claim that the existence of such a book as the Book of Mormon has never been shown in history besides the one book that Joseph Smith dug up (miraculously). I can’t seem to remember what were supposed to have happened to the golden plates upon finishing the translation – perhaps you can inform me?
Transpose that to what we know of the Bible – we know that before a certain time, it was not one book, but many. It was collected, arranged, and established many generations after Paul’s letters, after the apostles passed their Gospel along, and LONG after Moses composed his laws. We know of many books as fragments (you know this through the fabulous Dead Sea Scrolls at the MoI). This is what they seem to be alluding when they speak of the Bible as an archaeological thing – its development can be studied, understood, and observed. Not so with the book of Mormon – one day, it appeared. That’s it.
Just trying to clarify.
Guest 778:
I don’t see the Bible “moving forward and changing†with the times!
Kerry:
I have my serious doubts you ever even look into what is happening in the world of biblical scholarship. You really propose to teach that it isn’t changing and hasn’t done so for a loooooong time? Oh this I just gotta see! SHOW ME THE PROOF (and oh….uh, might as well make it archaeological, that wuold certainly help yer case – GRIN!)
And please notice I am NOT fighting the Bible, only your weak interpretations about it and archaeology. I simply don’t take such a morbidly weak stance for believing it is scripture. While you are at it, show me just *one* bonafide archaeologist (not some Christian minister hiding behind a facade as one) who says the Bible is proven using archaeology. Just ONE who says its PROVEN by this way. A real one, with real qualifications. I know of most of them……..
Jeremy:
This is what they seem to be alluding when they speak of the Bible as an archaeological thing – its development can be studied, understood, and observed
Kerry:
I, of course, do not dispute the existence of a book we call “The Bible.” But that was not the claim. If it has been proven archaeologically, to be accurate in its teachings, then lets have the evidence. Physical evidence does nothing for proving if anyone is “saved,” as Evangelicals love to say. “Have you been saved?” Well this is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in existence to Christians, yet how is that supposed to be proven? A mere city in existence (Jerusalem, lets pick the BIGGIE shall we?) does nothing to archaeologically prove Jesus even lived, let alone lived there. The very name of Jesus on the Ossuaries is not PROOF of his existence. Google “The Tomb of Jesus,” and watch the discussions this thing generates.
Saying archaeologically the Bible is proven is atrociously misusing archaeology as well as the Bible. As I say, I know of no Biblical archaeologist who touts the Bible is PROVEN as it exists today to be the way things really were.
For the most startling assessment of archaeology and the Bible, I wonder how many here have ventured to keep up with the newest archaeology of William G. Dever’s book “Did God Have a Wife?” showing the archaeology of God HAVING A WIFE, namely the ancient Asherah! I wonder if everyone here will now accept this archaeological PROOF……. It will be interesting to watch.
And he also shows archaeologically that the way and manner in which the Bible claims history occurred, IS NOT SO. It’s a re-write job by later authors.
Margaret Barker’s books (9 of them……***9 OF THEM*** have also shown that the Bible as we have it is a politically motivated agenda put together document, not a record of what actually happened in ancient history.
If we try to live by the sword of archaeology, we need to realize we shall die by that sword.
Its interesting to see Mr Shirts continue to skirt around the issues and not answer ANY questions other posters ask him. Instead he brings up other issues that had nothing to do with the original questions.
He still didn’t answer the one about the black man and all the changes the book of mormon has gone through over the years.
Or maybe he did with his *** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR **** ….the most correct book is “changing with the times”…I forgot. my bad!
Anyone who says theres no plagerization of spaulding and the book of mormon has clearly not done their homework and thats all there is left to say about the matter. *** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR ****
Kerry,
Archaeological evidence is not going to prove the existence of God, but it certainly adds credability to the geographical locations such as those mentioned in the Bible. An example of which might be seen in the ruins at Jericho, the royal palace at Samaria or the water tunnel under Jerusalem (the one that provided water during the Assyrian siege).
Why most of us here question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is because of the complete derth of evidence to support the historical claims made by it.
Where’s the City of Zarahemla?
Where are the chariots that had armor clad soldiers carrying steel swords? And why were there no wheels, or even pictures of them?
Why do we find no trace of horses in the Americas until the arrival of Columbus?
If the people of the BofM were as plentiful as mentioned in Helaman 3:8, “from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east”, then why is there no trace of their cement buildings that are mentioned? And why is your church now proposing a “limited geography” story that limits this location to a nebulous 500 sq. miles somewhere in Meso-America for the events that supposedly took place in in so vast an area?
Last but not least, the Hill Camorah…After building an elaborate edifice there (upstate N.Y.), your church is now saying that it is not really the place mentioned in their scriptures. That’s probably because there is absolutely no evidence that tens of thousand, yes even more than a million people lost their lives there in two gigantic battles. Not one shred of evidence to that effect. If the Hill Camorah is in Meso-America, as is now proposed, then how do you suppose Joseph Smith was able to find the golden plates in New York? That’s too big a stretch for the imagination to bear.
Kerry, these are the questions we’re asking here. If even one little shred of evidence were to turn up maybe we wouldn’t be so skeptical. It just ain’t gonna happen.
When we look at the Dead Sea scrolls, we have something tangible to back up the Bible.
The only artifact we have to support Mormonism ended up doing just the opposite. The parchment containing the “Book of Abraham” turned out to be something completely different than what your leader told his flock. If JS was willing to create that fraud then why are we expected to believe that the rest of the scriptures weren’t manufactured in the same way?
You better recuit some help here, Champ, the questions just keep piling up.
As always,
Meso
Kerry,
You ask in post #193,”Why should I do your homework for you?” Again you defer the questions to either the FARMS of FAIR sites. Having been the Director of Research at FAIR and having answered similar questions during that time should have prepared you with some answers to those question so often asked. Surely this little local group hasn’t come up with anything you haven’t heard before. So why is it so difficult for you to address these queries, in your own words, with the conviction you seen to hold. Just give it to us straight, you don’t need to quote your guru, Ostler, or wait for approval from higher authorities before you speak out. You of all people should know the answers without all that suport system (that’s assuming “Director of Research” wasn’t some honorary title).
Kerry,
It appears you might once again be ignoring my queries, so perhaps you might refer me to one of your apologist cohorts at FAIR or possibly FARMS. Just don’t send me to the guy who said the folks in the Book of Mormon were mistakenly calling tapirs..horses.
Yeah, you remember that explanation; the inhabitants in BofM times were actually referring to jungle tapirs when they spoke of “horses”. Man, can’t you just picture those epic battles…it would be the American version of Ben Hur, but with charioteers charging into battle behind a team of squealing, pig-like tapirs. It’s fun to try to imagine an Arnold Gribert painting of such an event. No, Kerry don’t refer me to that guy…hey, that wasn’t you was it?
Meso you assume far too much. Just because you won’t read on your own, and can ask question here, and I don’t chase every rabbit trail you guys produce has nothing to do with whether I can or not. The straight skinny on things? You have no interest in it, you are merely heckling. I have no interest in your heckling. I have given you places where the answers exist, and you continue to refuse to go there. It’s not my problem. Instead of throwing you a fish, I throw you a fishing pole and bait and tell you to go fish on your own and you are upset about being able to do it yourself. Oh well.
I beleive it is far and away more important and interesting for me to study Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek as wellas other materials than spend inordinately large amounts of time here with people who refuse to study things out on their own about another religion. You are just going to have to get over it if I choose not to play your games with you with every single trifling irrelevant question you can think of to throw out as if salvation depends on your questions. It doesn’t. Sorry.
No matter what answer I give, what website I show you guys will continue claiming nothing has been anaswered. Oh well, enjoy the darkness as you insist…….
And you haven’t proven one thing of what supposedly occurred in the Bible archaeologically yet. A mere claim of subjective “Yeah I have more confidence in it cause I know da geography” proves exactly nothing.
Meso:
Surely this little local group hasn’t come up with anything you haven’t heard before. So why is it so difficult for you to address these queries, in your own words, with the conviction you seen to hold.
Kerry:
Chortle. Your assumptions are showing again Meso. Because I don’t engage in every little petty thing you bring up you automatically assume I can’t? Oh that’s rich, that’s VERY RICH! Howling LAUGHTER!!!!!
Thanks for makin my day bubba……. you be one funny guy.
Meso:
Kerry, these are the questions we’re asking here. If even one little shred of evidence were to turn up maybe we wouldn’t be so skeptical. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Kerry:
That’s interesting, because Jesus literally (if the record is correct anyway) healed people right in sight, and the scoffers still wouldn’t believe. He raised the dead, and made the blind see, and they continued to try and STONE Him, and ended up killing him. They demanded signs, proofs, and saw it, and still disbelieved.
What makes you think I am going to believe you aren’t in their camp when you continue to act just like the skeptics of Jesus’ day? Hmmmmmm?
And why can I predict, with pure accuracy that there is nothing that you can or will be shown that will convince you? Believers don’t follow the signs, the signs follow the believers………
Meso:
Surely this little local group hasn’t come up with anything you haven’t heard before.
Kerry:
Hey! ***FINALLY*** you got something right……. whew, I was getting worried about ya for a moment there pal…..
I am quite curious as to what is thought of the historical and archaeological discoveries of the weighing and measuring systems in the ancient world, and how those same systems are exactly what is depicted in the Book of Mormon.
I don’t say these things are proof, as some do around here. But I do suggest they are very strong for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Not only have the correct words been actually *found*, but also the correct contexts of money and weighing and measuring wealth, and how actual economic exchanges occurred.
Can this material be shown to NOT support the Book of Mormon? You want archaeology, this is a very stimulating article for your considerations, provided you will read it and show me whats wrong with it.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=198
Hey, I feel kinda like the champ now. Can you picture me dancing aroung the ring, waving my arms in the air in victory? What’s that you say there Kerry…No mas..No mas?
Scoobysnax:
He still didn’t answer the one about the black man and all the changes the book of mormon has gone through over the years.
Kerry:
This is simply untrue. Are you blind or something? I did answer them. Now granted you won’t everbe satisfied with the answers I gave, but I certainly did answer them. Why do you have to say untrue things about what I have already done? Messages 120-140 I had some very good discussions with Jeremy about things, and cited several scholars, and all I got from the rest of you is complaints about how long the posts were! Are you reading anything I post? I have my serious doubts.
Just because I don’t answer to *your* satisfactions does not mean I am ignoring things. I will talk to who I want, when I want, thank you, and if it’s not with you perhaps you can re-read how Jeremy is posting and tow the line for politeness and how to actually have a onversation instead of squealing all over the place about your ideas and instead of what you post, and I may very well decide you are worth talking to.
But to say what you said is patently UNTRUE. I even cited more scholars on the most correct book thing, namely Hugh Nibley. Who have you bothered to reference in anything yet?
Homeslice in post 183 specifically asked about the Book of Mormon plagiarizing Shakespeare. I have been asked around here why I am not answering questions (I am, but its so much easier to make a false accusation and ask a question than it is to read answers provided to the questions – that’s so weird!).
So, What about this issue of Shakespeare? As I say, were you critics to look into some things on your own instead of believing what everyone else says about the supposed problems of the Book of Mormon, you would learn far better than you do about the Book of Mormon.
And I just KNOW you are going to complain again about this being long, but you ask for evidence, then quit whining about it when I produce it. You asked for evidence and I gave you websites and you complain about me not answering them myself. So here you go, read and enjoy.
B.H. Roberts noted long ago the main problem with this argument. Lehi is closer to Job than to Shakespeare:
“Now the fact is there are two passages in Job which could easily have supplied both Shakespeare and Lehi with the idea of that country “from whose bourn no traveler returns.” That this may appear I give the passages from Shakespeare, Job and Lehi. It should be remembered always that the Nephites had the Jewish scriptures with them, including the book of Job; hence Lehi could have obtained his idea from the same source whence Shakespeare obtained his.
Shakespeare: “That undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns.”
Job: “Let me alone that I may take comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death.” (Job x: 20, 21.) “When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return.” (Job xvi: 22.)
Lehi: “Hear the words of a parent whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave from whence no traveler can return.”
It will be observed that the passage from the Book of Mormon follows Job more closely than it does Shakespeare both in thought and diction; and this for the reason, doubtless, that Lehi had been impressed with Job’s idea of going to the land whence he would not return, and Joseph Smith, being familiar with Job, and very likely not familiar with Shakespeare, when he came to Lehi’s thought, expressed it nearly in Job’s phraseology.
The Unknown has certainly plunged into the fog respecting his alleged connection between Nephi and Shakespeare, and by some sort of mental contortion utterly inexplicable, has arrived at the conclusion that we must suppose that Nephi had a copy of our English Bible as well as the Jewish scriptures, and also a copy of Shakespeare, in order to account for the passage in the Book of Mormon which he alleges is a quotation from the English poet. I must come to the rescue of the Unknown in this matter: I begin to have some degree of commiseration for him in his mental struggle to comprehend even this very simple matter. Attend, then: Lehi lived in Judea in the seventh and sixth century, B.C. He was acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, including the book of Job, and when he departed from Jerusalem for the western world his colony took with them those same scriptures. Through them he became familiar in the Hebrew with Job’s–”Let me alone, that I may take comfort a little before I go whence I shall not return.” Also Job’s–”When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return.” When Lehi’s own hour of departure hence had come, impressed with this solemn thought of Job’s, he gave expression to it in Hebrew. The saying was recorded by his son Nephi in the Egyptian characters employed by him in making his record. Observe that we have traced these ideas of the “land whence I shall not return” into the Nephite records without the aid of the English Bible or Shakespeare. When Joseph Smith came to this thought in Nephi, the thought, mark you, he translated it into the English, and being familiar with the book of Job, his translation followed somewhat the phraseology of Job in our English version. Shakespeare nowhere appears in all this, and if he did, if Joseph Smith had expressed this old Hebrew and Nephite thought in Shakespeare’s exact phraseology instead of that of our English version of Job, it would have been no valid objection to the Book of Mormon, for Shakespeare died in 1616, and the English version of the Bible was published in 1611, only five years before the poet’s death! Are we to infer from this that “M” thinks Shakespeare had no English Bible from which to paraphrase this passage? If so–and I can see nothing else in his reference to these dates–then I would inform the gentleman that as there were brave men before Agamenon, so were there English Bibles before the 1611 edition; Wycliff’s English Bible, 1380-1384; Tyndale’s English translation, 1530; Miles Coverdale’s English translation, 1535, dedicated to Henry VIII, and for a time issued under the royal sanction. From any of these versions Shakespeare could have paraphrased Job’s words.
(B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.332-3)
Matt Roper discussing the Tanner’s methodology has demonstrated how they misuse with the LDS sources, even to pretending that Sidney B. Sperry admitted it was alright to use Shakespeare as the BofM quoted from it! Sperry said nothing even remotely close to this.
Matthew Roper, in (“Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,” Vol. 2, #2, p. 190.)
Franklin Harris noted in his book, “The Book of Mormon: Messages and Evidence” p. 113f,
Alexander Campbell referred to a quotation from Shakespeare. This has been repeated by many others including John Hyde, Jr, T. B. H. Stenhouse, M. T. Lamb, W. A. Linn, and G. B. Arbaugh.
Let us compare three verses from Job in the Old Testament with Lehi in the Book of Mormon and with Shakespeare.
Job 10:20–21: “Let me alone that I may take comfort a little before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death,” and 16:22, “When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return.”
Lehi (2 Ne. 1:14) expresses the idea as: “Hear the words of a trembling parent whose limbs you must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return.”
Shakespeare: “The undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns.” Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1.
It appears that Lehi is more like Job than Shakespeare. Since Lehi studied Old Testament records and Shakespeare was familiar with the Bible, it seems likely that they took their common inspiration from Job. Joseph Smith may have been familiar with Job but it is unlikely that he was familiar with Shakespeare.
Hugh Nibley has simply destroyed this argument from another tack than Roberts and Harris, who already showed how silly the argument was in the first place!
(Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.6, Part.7, Ch.21, p.277)
No passage in the Book of Mormon has been more often singled out for attack than Lehi’s description of himself as one “whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return” (2 Nephi 1:14). This passage has inspired scathing descriptions of the Book of Mormon as a mass of stolen quotations “from Shakespeare and other English poets.”
Lehi does not quote Hamlet directly, to be sure, for he does not talk of “that undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveler returns,” but simply speaks of “the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return.”
In mentioning the grave, the eloquent old man cannot resist the inevitable “cold and silent” nor the equally inevitable tag about the traveler–a device that, with all respect to Shakespeare, Lehi’s own contemporaries made constant use of. Long ago Friedrich Delitzsch wrote a classic work on ancient Oriental ideas about death and afterlife, and a fitting title of his book was Das Land ohne Heimkehr–”The Land of No Return.” In the story of Ishtar’s descent to the underworld, the lady goes to the irsit la tari, “the land of no return.” She visits “the dark house from which no one ever comes out again” and travels along “the road on which there is no turning back.” A recent study of Sumerian and Akkadian names for the world of the dead lists prominently “the hole, the earth, the land of no return, the path of no turning back, the road whose course never turns back, the distant land, etc.”
A recently discovered fragment speaks of the grave as “the house of Irkallu, where those who have come to it are without return. . . . A place whose dead are cast in the dust, in the direction of darkness . . . [going] to the place where they who came to it are without return.”
This is a good deal closer to Lehi’s language than Shakespeare is. The same sentiments are found in Egyptian literature, as in a popular song which tells how “the gods that were aforetime rest in their pyramids. . . . None cometh again from thence that he may tell of their state. . . . Lo, none may take his goods with him, and none that hath gone may come again.” A literary text reports:
“The mockers say, `The house of the inhabitants of the Land of the West is deep and dark; it has no door and no window. . . . There the sun never rises but they lie forever in the dark.’ ”
Shakespeare should sue; but Lehi, a lover of poetic imagery and high-flown speech, can hardly be denied the luxury of speaking as he was supposed to speak. The ideas to which he here gives such familiar and conventional expression are actually not his own ideas about life after death–nor Nephi’s nor Joseph Smith’s, for that matter, but they are the ideas which any eloquent man of Lehi’s day, with a sound literary education such as Lehi had, would be expected and required to use. And so the most popular and obvious charge of fraud against the Book of Mormon has backfired.
(Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.8, Ch.3, p.90 – p.91)
Lehi and Shakespeare. The only rival of the “faith-is-things-which-are-hoped-for” passage as a target for critics is Lehi’s description of himself as one “whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return” (2 Nephi 1:14).
This is the passage–the lone passage–that has inspired those scathing descriptions of the Book of Mormon as a mass of stolen quotations from “Shakespeare and other English poets.” Lehi does not quote Hamlet directly, to be sure, for he does not talk of “that undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveler returns,” but simply speaks of “the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return.”
In mentioning the grave, the eloquent old man cannot resist the inevitable “cold and silent,” nor the equally inevitable tag about the traveler–a tag so inevitable that not only Shakespeare but also Lehi’s own contemporaries made constant use of it!
Long ago Friedrich Delitzsch wrote a classic work on the Babylonian and Assyrian, i.e., the common Near Eastern, ideas about death and the beyond. And what was the title of his book? Das Land ohne Heimkehr–”the Land of No Return.”
In the story of Ishtar’s descent to the underworld, the lady goes to the irsit la tari, “the land of no return” (where tari may be the same root as that used in our own “re-turn”). She visits “the dark house from which no one ever comes out again” and travels along “the road on which there is no turning back.”
Someone is plagiarizing like mad, for these are the most obvious variations on the Hamlet theme–even more obvious than Lehi’s! Recently Tallquist has made a thorough study of Sumerian and Akkadian names for the world of the dead; conspicuous among these are “the hole,” “the earth,” “the land of no return,” “the city of no return,” “the path of no turning back,” “the road whose course never turns back,” “the distant land,” “the steppe,” “the desert,” and so on. Shakespeare should sue. In Lehi in the Desert we had occasion to note more than once that Lehi loved poetic discourse and high-flown speech, was proud of his sound literary education, and was much given to recitation. Since custom sanctioned and expected the use of such terms as he employed in speaking of the grave, it is hard to deny him the luxury of speaking as he was supposed to speak. Especially significant is the fact that the ideas to which the aged Lehi here gives such moving expression by no means reflect either his own (or Mormon’s or Joseph Smith’s) ideas as to what the afterlife is really like. That shows that he is indulging in a strictly conventional and normal bit of educated eloquence, as old men are wont to. If he had a weakness for paraphrasing Hamlet’s soliloquy when speaking about death, so did all his contemporaries!
The Land of No Return, long viewed as the fatal blunder of the Book of Mormon by the oracles of the English Department, hardly deserves mention, since there is nothing the least bit peculiar about it. It is a commonplace in the literature of the whole Near East from the earliest times to the present. We pointed out years ago that Lehi’s use of the expression is strictly formulaic and did not necessarily reflect his real belief about death at all. An interesting confirmation of this is to be found on early Christian and Jewish epitaphs, wherein the pious dead are described as “sleeping their last sleep,” a thing which the authors of the epitaphs, as J. Frey observes, did not believe for a minute. The “land of no return” is, however, a good illustration of the pitfalls of impulsive criticism. Even English majors should know that it does not have to come from Shakespeare. The most famous poem of Catullus, on the death of his lady’s pet sparrow, contains a couplet that is nearer to Lehi’s language than Shakespeare’s: Qui nunc it per iter tenebricosum, Illuc unde negant redire quemquam. Which Lord Bryon rendered: “Now having pass’d the gloomy bourn from whence he never can return.”
Wow. I’ve read a lot of apologists’ rantings about various Christian sects, but I’ve got to say Mr. Shirts takes the gold for disregarding questioners’ concerns!
Looks pretty futile to me, guys. This Kerry Shirts fella has no intentions of handling the tough questions. He got a fool-proof way out – just claim to have already addressed the query! “Next! What? I already showed you! Go look for it yourself!”
ROFLMAO!
Meso:
Hey, I feel kinda like the champ now. Can you picture me dancing aroung the ring, waving my arms in the air in victory? What’s that you say there Kerry…No mas..No mas?
Kerry:
HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!! You haven’t even gotten into the ring yet and you are already proclaiming victory? What have you refuted yet, anything about Shakespeare being plagiarized? Anything about the Book of Mormon I have posted on the coins?
Do you honestly think your mere dismissal is a refutation? You crack me up dude. Thanks for the good laugh…..
oooh child:
Wow. I’ve read a lot of apologists’ rantings about various Christian sects, but I’ve got to say Mr. Shirts takes the gold for disregarding questioners’ concerns!
Looks pretty futile to me, guys. This Kerry Shirts fella has no intentions of handling the tough questions. He got a fool-proof way out – just claim to have already addressed the query! “Next! What? I already showed you! Go look for it yourself!â€
ROFLMAO!
Kerry:
Is this all the better you can do to refute what I have posted and referenced? I didn’t think you could, but to see all you do is make fun of some attempts at engaging in the issues is very interesting all right. I am addressing the issues, you just aren’t enjoying it is all. My proof is in the above posts.
Kerry,
I have to say, I’m a bit disappointed in how you have handled the discussion thus far. These people have brought up valid questions and questions, and it seems as if you are shouting them down, just the same as some of the other abusive posters here – though, in addition to sarcasm, you are simply citing the same FARMS website over and over again. I expected much more, Kerry.
The question of archaeological evidence is valid – as Meso said, many concepts in the Bible have been proven through research and major findings. We know now where Sodom was, we have seen the charred city walls, walked the ancient streets of Jericho, and seen the places where Christ was crucified. However, we have found no evidence of this ancient race of migrant Jews in America. We have found no evidence of these great Nephite cities. And, as meso said, Horses didn’t exist in America (most likely) until the arrival of Europeans. These findings strike at the very heart of the validity of the Book of Mormon – not as a spiritual message (which cannot be proven) but as a historical spiritual record of early America.
For example, if we were unable to find such cities as Jericho, Jerusalem, and Sodom, it would strike me that the Bible would likely be incredibly inaccurate and not dependable – however, since we do have records of these things, it bolsters my belief in the Good Book. Not necessarily regarding the spiritual nature of God, but in His interaction with Man (through Christ and otherwise). You are right that we cannot prove through this particular science that Christ was the Son of God, but we can prove that He existed – and we have, indeed, done such a thing. We cannot, however, prove that any such peoples as migrant Jews lived in America. We cannot even make suppositions based on DNA, archeology, genealogy, or otherwise. So, do we not have reason to doubt the veracity of the Book of Mormon as accurate?
I am asking for a critical analysis on your part – I would suggest not simply dumping sources in my lap. Part of the role of an apologist is to distill history and fact into critically analyzed, well-argued focal points. So far, you’ve not done that. I’m asking you to do so now.
Kerry,
This is your archaeological evidence…a vague, coincidental similarity between Egyptian weights and measures and those mentioned in the Book of Mormon? You say, “those same systems are exactly what is depicted in the Book of Mormon”. The author of that article, John Welch, has it a bit differently, saying, “Although the Egyptian system bears certain similarities to that of the Nephites–both are binary, both have six defined measures, and both feature an addition whole amount which is the sum of lesser parts–the two systems were not absolutely identical”.
This “archaeological” evidence you put forth isn’t quite what most of us were hoping for here. I think we were looking for something a bit more concrete than that. You really seem to be grasping for straws here in an attempt to stay afloat in these roily waters.
That lengthy discourse about Shakespeare, while enlightening, could be considered by a few of us to be a smoke screen on your part, meant to obscure the issues at hand by simply wearing us out with your extended rhetoric. By the fluency of the sentences and lack of typos, I’d say you scribed it well though.
But at least you’re back in the ring, swinging away. Must have caught a second wind, eh, Champ?
Exactly what I’ve been saying all along! Mr Shirts skates around the topic at hand! He never really answers ANY questions head on. It’s all smoke and mirrors with Mr Shirts which he thinks hes quite good at, but of which we all see right through! Instead of giving any real answers, he goes off on a tangent about Jesus and proof of his healing powers and proof of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. WHO my I ask even mentioned ANYTHING about the topic of Jesus and his ability’s?? Once again Mr Shirts skates around the topics presented to him.
And yes, I did do my homework. I went to links you provided and funny thing is…these sites are worded pretty much the way your responses are. Without any real merit or proof, but with more smoke and mirrors. Its amazing how this religion teaches its followers to “bob n weave” around the actual questions of which they have no real answers, all the while teaching them the art of deception.
Homeslice,
I wanna buy you a beer. Good work!
Jeremy:
you are simply citing the same FARMS website over and over again. I expected much more, Kerry.
Kerry:
Jeremy I am disappointed in you and the other posters. Instead of refuting the “same FARMS website over and over again” you simply dismiss the evidence as they do. Merely noting the site is not refuting. THEY have provided directly actual archaeological evidence in some instances, and as I have noted, they are still not accepted. I said that would be the reaction.
You guys ask for evidence, I present it, and you make fun of it or simply toss it off. Does that refute it though? Oh well. I think no matter what I present, many here will simply toss it off and minimize it, and then turn around and say I haven’t presented anything. Oh well, there is just no pleasing some folks.
Meso:
This “archaeological†evidence you put forth isn’t quite what most of us were hoping for here. I think we were looking for something a bit more concrete than that. You really seem to be grasping for straws here in an attempt to stay afloat in these roily waters.
Kerry:
So this doesn’t count? A system that fits well with what the Book of Mormon proclaims was had anciently, and this isn’t what you were expecting? The system with *identical names* of the grains in some instances, and this doesn’t mean anything? There is nothing that will convince you. I have already said that. Interesting how you are proving me correct in saying so. Archaeology is not the last, final, nor even the best proof of anything. Oh well. Not my worry.
Heinekin please! (since you’re buying)
Meso:
That lengthy discourse about Shakespeare, while enlightening, could be considered by a few of us to be a smoke screen on your part, meant to obscure the issues at hand by simply wearing us out with your extended rhetoric. By the fluency of the sentences and lack of typos, I’d say you scribed it well though.
Kerry:
A specific point brought out against the Book of Mormon, which I answer in detail and even *this* is now a smoke screen? Obscuring the issues? It was an issue specifically brought up. You guys ask me to address the topics you bring up, I do so, and now I am smokescreening? How utterly convenient for you. Everything I bring out will be so labeled yes? What a convenience you have.
As I said before, you have no interest in understanding, just here to ridicule and make sure you get “points,” whatever that is worth. You haven’t refuted my research on the Shakespeare argument, you now simply say I am smokescreening. Gee, I wish I could do things that easy.
Homeslice:
I went to links you provided and funny thing is…these sites are worded pretty much the way your responses are. Without any real merit or proof, but with more smoke and mirrors.
Kerry:
Are you able to specifically point out what it was that appeared as a smokescreen on the issue? Or is this generalization made without any substance and merit?
Jeremy:
as Meso said, many concepts in the Bible have been proven through research and major findings. We know now where Sodom was,
Kerry:
And does this prove the Bible discussion and ideas true about Sodom? You seriously think there is *any* archaeologist out there who has said now that we know *where* a city is, this proves everything the Bible record said about who lived there, what happened, how many caravans went back and forth through there, trading wares and goods etc.? Again, show me how this proves that Lot’s wife was turned to a literal pillar of Salt as Josephus claims….. show me the pillar of salt for all that! Come on, you can surely see the problem of archaeology….. can’t you? No one has proven a thing about the Bible yet and the claim is, it has the proof through archaeology! Well where is it?
Jeremy:
You are right that we cannot prove through this particular science that Christ was the Son of God, but we can prove that He existed – and we have, indeed, done such a thing.
Kerry:
You can? Really now……. you think you have proven because there is a Jerusalem that Jesus is the Son of God? And that he existed? Maybe to some who already believe as we do, but not to an outsider. I shall find a website for you to go show them the proof, so you can see for yourself how worthless archaeology is for proving Jesus existed. I shall return shortly. I have tried for years to show them, and if you have more and better archaeology than I do, I wanna see it! Especially to them!
Kerry, this is from FARMS:
“In recent times, some critics have suggested that there is a simple way to determine the validity of the Book of Mormon by the analysis and comparison of Hebrew and Amerindian DNA. Some have even suggested that such studies have already been done and that they showed no genetic relationship between the two peoples. In reality, much research still needs to be done, but it seems unlikely that such research could provide evidence for or against the Book of Mormon. We do not know what ancient Israelite or Nephite/Lamanite DNA looked like and modern Jewish populations may not reflect Israelite ancestry because of intermarriage and conversion over the past few thousand years. The articles included here address different issues related to the DNA question as it relates to Book of Mormon peoples.”
Two problems here, as it regards to your defense of the Mormon Religion through FARMS:
1) By their own admission, as per above text, FARMS researchers acknowledge that there seems to be an inconsistency between what the Book of Mormon states and what we have found to be true from DNA research. Their rationale? Well, we don’t know what might have happened to change the DNA patterns between ancient Israel and native Americans. Who is tossing off evidence? Instead of confronting the issue, FARMS apologists shrug it off by saying “Well, between Judea and America, the DNA of the Jewish people changed.” Kerry, you seem like a rational guys, so tell me – what could cause DNA to change so dramatically in such a short amount of time? DNA, in a stable environment, doesn’t just rearrange itself arbitrarily. In order for the Mormon Doctrine to stand up to empirical evidence, it would be necessary that American Indian DNA would bear a striking resemblance to ancient Isrealites, correct? That’s only logical. This isn’t the case, so let’s work through the logic:
1) American Indians were descendant from Ancient Isrealites.
2) American Indians migrated from Isreal.
3) People in ancient Isreal and American Indians are from the same lineage.
4) People from the same lineage share DNA patters.
5) People from ancient Isreal and American Indians do not share DNA patters.
6) People from ancient Asia and American Indians do share DNA patterns.
7) American Indians are descendant from ancient Asians.
So, how do we reconcile this with our faith? Well, again from FARMS:
“The question of precisely where the events chronicled in the Book of Mormon took place arises naturally since to date neither the record itself nor the Lord through his prophets has revealed its New World setting in terms that permit conclusive linkages to modern-day locales. Speculation on the subject has spawned two principal theories: the hemispheric model (with Book of Mormon lands comprising North, Central, and South America) and the limited geography model (a restricted New World setting on the order of hundreds rather than thousands of miles). Although the hemispheric view was popular among early Latter-day Saints, it simply is not clear whether it was the result of prophetic revelation or merely the outgrowth of the personal ideas and assumptions of the Prophet Joseph Smith and other brethren. Historical research indicates that Joseph Smith never claimed revelation on the subject and that the thinking of early church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography was subject to modification as new information came to light. Indeed, the diversity of nineteenth-century opinion is striking, attesting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had no authoritative stance on what was—and continues to be—an open issue. Today many Latter-day Saint scholars and other serious students of the Book of Mormon favor the limited geography theory, with Mesoamerica (extending from southern Mexico to Guatemala) as the Book of Mormon homeland. This interpretation, with antecedents apparent in the 1840s, seems to best match the complex requirements of the scriptural text itself while remaining tenable after years of rigorous examination in light of the archaeological and cultural record of ancient Mesoamerica.”
Assumptions? I thought the Book of Mormon was the “most perfect” word of God, and yet it lies on assumptions? You do not need revelation to dictate history – even in the Bible we can correlate history with what the Bible teaches! In order to accept the Book of Mormon as an accurate rendering of the History of God’s interaction with Man, you must first understand that it is, on a most basic level, at least somewhat in correlation with the reality in which we live – this statement, coupled with the independent research done by native American tribes, coupled with the words written on the pages on the Book of Mormon (NOT ASSUMPTION!) indicates that this book does not pass that particular test. The Bible does.
Now, Kerry, I think you believe we are stupid, and your argumentative tactics at this point are an insult to our intelligence. You are assuming that none of us have studies Mormon doctrine, read the Book of Mormon, and are just ignorant of the whole thing. Again, that’s an insult. If we are to continue this conversation, I would suggest a more esteemed opinion of your audience rather than treating us like children. Either that, or I believe this discussion is finished and no minds are changed, no new information gained, and the bitterness will only be deepened between the cultures in SE Idaho. It’s your call, really.
Hey, where’s the referee here. Joe, give the champ a standing eight count. He’s taken too many shots to the head and he’s reeling! He seems incoherent.
One more note: Kerry, you continue an abusive tactic of attempting to lump FACT and MEANING together into one concept – ie If we prove that Christ existed, then we must prove that He was the Son of God. It has been said many, many times, almost exhaustively, that evidence helps to bolster the factualness of a statement, but not the meaning. I don’t know how to make this any more clear, and at this point I must assume that you continue to bring this concept up in order to put a cog in the gears of the discussion. I think you’re smart enough to know what we’re really talking about, and to continue bringing up this convolution of fact and meaning is ridiculous. Please stick to the topic at hand.
Jeremy, here is your site to go prove Jesus existed to Earl Doherty. Use all the archaeology you wish to my friend….
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm
One more note (Sorry, this is really the last one):
“The prophets who contributed to the Book of Mormon record focused on religious teachings rather than on geographical or genetic details; they provided only a partial picture of the events of their days and usually within the confines of their family lineage. Thus, the Book of Mormon record does not supply sufficient information to provide a reliable calibration point in the past that may serve as a reference for modern-day DNA comparisons. DNA information alone therefore cannot disprove or prove the Book of Mormon.”
This was taken from FARMS, in an article by John M. Butler (here is a link so you know that I am representing it in context: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=601 )
So, here we have basically conceded that the Book of Mormon does not stand to history, correct? It states plainly that the Prophets of the Mormon religion are more concerned with matters of a spiritual nature rather than geographical, ancestral, and, indeed, factual nature. It seems as if the FARMS apologists are unable to defend the claims made by Joseph Smith, and therefor have decided to make it a non-issue. Am I interpreting Mr. Butler’s stance correctly? If so, this is fine – but let’s be honest with what that would mean. It means that the Book of Mormon loses that validity as having its base in the world of reality and therefor we must believe in it as strictly a spiritual and moral book. So, I am asking for your either a) defense against this statement and reaffirm that the people of ancient Judea migrated to America or b) concede my previously stated point. I cannot see any but one of these two options for the direction of our debate … can you?
You’re asking me to define whether Jesus existed or not based on one website?
Come on, Kerry, you can do better than that. Don’t insult us all.
Great work, Jeremy, you’ve got a beer coming too.
Well thanks, but I resent any insinuation that I’m arguing to garner support or popularity. I’m here to strive for the truth – while I appreciate the vote of confidence, I don’t want anybody to get the impression we’re performing here. These are very real, important questions that shouldn’t be dealt with lightly.
Mr. Shirts seems to be contradicting himself through hipocrisy. Isn’t it true that although the book of mormon is your true vessel for which you believe is your entry into the kingdom of heaven, but also the Bible?? I quote AND copy from lightplanet.com the LDS’s belief in the Bible:
“The Church believes the word of God contained in the Bible. It accepts the Bible “as the foremost of [the Church's] standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as…written guides in faith and doctrine. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general” (AF, 1966 ed., p. 236).
So WHY Mr.Shirts, would you be trying to discredit the Bible, it’s stories, its cities, the people listed within its pages, and even God himself??? The very book for which you and your church use for worship AND for guidance just as you do the book of mormon?
Your reponses thus far are full of hipocrisy. You can not have your cake and eat it to!
I agree – it seems as if you are taking the nuclear approach. If the book of Mormon is in danger of being discredited, then take down everything with it. If one religion fails, all fail. Again, it’s abusive and, in the end, incorrect.
What an interesting and stimulating “discussion”! Thank you. As an observer, and for what it is worth, it seems that Mr. Shirt’s started out believing that no one could match him intellectually in his defense of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism in general. JeremyPlo and Meso, however have (to thread 242, at least) made Shirt’s intellectual postion seem tenuous at best! I would be interested in Sheet’s actual answering inquiries posited (such as thread 237) rather than fanning more smoke. Perhaps he can’t and Meso is right, it is time for ref to “call it.” But it won’t be a TKO, it will truly be a “knockout.” Thanks again.
In reading this disucussion, I kind of feel that Kerry and Meso are wasting their time. They both have their mind made up as to what they believe.
It is pretty clear Meso is never going to change his mind, it just appears he is just trying to feed the argument, which Kerry is feeding on his end as well. Why bother keep it going?
Neither party will ever convince the other that they are right and the other is wrong. It just keeps progressing in a never ending argument.
Jeremy:
and the bitterness will only be deepened between the cultures in SE Idaho. It’s your call, really.
Kerry:
And I shall call it. As an observer has noted, there is nothing to gain here. I have been falsely accused and nothing I say is viable to anyone. But to be even hinted at causing a deeper rift between cultures here at home is over the top. I won’t be falsely accused of this and continue. I have no desire for enemies and causing problems. So have a great beer party (unfortunately I can’t attend, you’ll just have to get drunk without me)….. I bid you all adieu ladies and gentlemen
That’s it. He’s thrown in the towel!
A KO, as predicted!
I started off on Shirt’s side…thanks JeremyPlo and Meso for the intellectual ‘pounding’.
Thank goodness I thought it was all boring.
It would be awesome to see some of that passion and intellectual and respect stuff come out in some of the hundreds of other articles in our archives:
http://idahofallz.com/article-archives
As Mr Shirts concedes he leaves us with one last misconception. Which I think was a problem all along with his rebuttals and his views towards the topics presented in this case. He ends with “you’ll have to get drunk without me”. Just another example of him reading into something that just wasn’t there and certainly wasn’t stated by another poster. Nobody said anything about getting “drunk”. I beleive ” a beer” was mentioned. That’s quite a ways from being intoxicated. But then again, he’s been so programmed and conditioned by this religion one can hardly hold this comment against him. And just for the record… your Lord & Savior Jesus Christ certainly wasn’t against a tasty adult beverage from time to time. So cheers to you and the others for an interesting debate to say the least!
All we can do is be proud of Mr. Shirts for opening his eyes to a glimpse of the actual truth. I must say I was hoping for some real “answers” to their questions, but at least he tried and we must give him credit for that.
Entertaining post!
I hope I was not discouraging in my remark that I thought the discussion was boring. It was just a subject that did not interest me.
It seemed that one side was never going to be satisfied with the evidence the other produced, and the one side was always going to insist the other was not really examining the evidence. I imagine there was a little truth to both sides, but it just created a circle of chasing each others’ tails.
On the other hand, it was nice to see locals engaged in intellectual discussions, and generally without name-calling and putdowns (only had to edit a couple comments after the new policies took effect), nobody seemed to hurt anybody and if they were entertained then no harm no foul, right?
I hope these participants find other articles where they can add their great discussion comments:
http://idahofallz.com/article-archives
Joe,
It’s going to be hard to find another topic in the archives to match this one. Mormon apologists like Shirts will keep on spreading the story that their church wants told. Your site has offered us a vehicle to answer their propoganda, hopefully in a respectful manner and with the goal of discerning the truth.
Wow, I’ve got to say that was fun!
Thanks, Joe for this great site.
Meso
I thought it was fun too! And it sure will be difficult to find another post that has a topic that will spark this much passion & controversy.
Hope everyone is having a great weekend!
PapaJon –
I noticed that YOU noticed the “you’ll just have to get drunk without me” comment.
I am glad somebody besides me noticed that oddity (that having a “beer” means “getting drunk”).
It has been an interesting discussion, some religious discussions are.
Thanks all!
This is a question I’ve always been intrigued by. Shortly after the death of Jesus, a man who we know as the Apostle Paul became the most important figure in the nascent religion of Christianity. His methods of evangelization were to journey to the lands and cities of the Roman Empire personally, as well as writing detailed letters to churches that he had visited, founded, or heard of. These letters were copied by the receiving churches and sent on to other churches so that many churches had a nearly complete set of Paul’s letters (as we know them today from the New Testament).
My question is this; In the NT we have two letters from Paul to the church in Corinth. Commonly called 1 and 2 Corinthians, these two letters are extremely intricate and detailed explanations of the faith, Jesus’s life, and what it means to us. But, a close reading of the second letter reveals that this is at least the third letter that Paul sent to that church. Now this letter has never been recovered but what if it was (i. e. proof beyond a shadow of a doubt of authenticity)? What would that mean for the Bible as currently constituted? Should the letter be inserted directly into the New Testament? Since it isn’t there now, did God (if you believe) not want us to have this letter as scripture? Peter describes Paul’s letters as scripture; What about Paul’s laundry list? wink
I go back and forth on this one. If you are a Christian, do you believe the Bible is put together as it was meant to be? If another letter of Paul was found, would that be evidence to non-Christians that our faith is based on shaky ground… if we can’t be sure of our source material…
Post 242 (Jeremy) is one of the most rediculous things I have ever read in my entire life. Seriously. Jeremy, you are so far out there on this topic that its not funny. You are going down the right path, but my goodness you have a lot to learn on this subject!
Guest 255~
Post 242 is not Jeremy’s opinion on religion, but a response and observation on the debate approach of another poster.
Context: Important in religious study as well as message boards.
Davin, I reread post 242 and I see what you are saying. My appologies to Jeremy. I misunderstood, and was incorrect. I am sorry Jeremy.
Guest, that was very civil of you to come back with that. Few people admit when they make an error, especially when it requires making the extra effort of another comment. I appreciate your civility and humility here.
That’s been one of the biggest ideas I’ve learned in running IFz, is to open myself up to learning from others and admitting when wrong.
Kronos – interesting question, but your sarcasm about the Bible is misinformed. The Bible was not written as one book – it was collected over the course of thousands of years, and eventually compiles as “The Holy Book” by religious scholars by vote. All cynicism aside, that’s the way it was. It includes books from the Torah (the Hebrew Bible), accounts of Christ’s life from the point of view of His followers (The Gospels), letters written by His disciples (the latter half of the New Testament) as well as literature and civic records of ancient times (see Song of Solomon, Leviticus, Numbers, etc.).
So it’s not a matter of what God wanted in the Bible, it’s a matter of what man wanted to be in a book about God. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.
I’d love to see this other letter, though I suspect Paul wrote far more than just three letters! And yes, I think Paul’s laundry list should be in the Bible. It’d be short, though – the apostles lived in poverty and in constant fear of their life.
It is noteworthy to me that the group of scholars who voted on the bible are said to be (and most likely ARE) male. Why is this important, some may ask? Because the bible is slanted toward misogyny – which – for many people causes the bible to lose quite a bit of credibility. Written by MEN , voted on by MEN – and we are supposed to accept it as “divine” interpretation. (How many who just read that last sentence had to wonder if I’m a man-hater? I bet @ least a few.)
I see it as a group of men making up rules to control the masses. Women weren’t even allowed a voice in church (1Co 14:34 – let the women by silent in the congregation for it is not permissible to speak, but let them be in subjectation even as the Law says).
Hmmm.
The bible begins with the dawn of our planet then very quickly resorts to Adam blaming Eve for HIS choice to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge, claiming she beguiled him into eating it, then the Almighty himself joined in and demanded to know what SHE had done(Gal 3:12-13). Was Adam a helpless pawn to her devious whims? Who knows, but the bible makes it clear that Eve started the problem by letting herself be taken in by the serpent – and WHO was Adam “Taken in” by?
Then there is LILITH – Adam’s first wife – who didn’t even make it into the bible, who many Christians have never even heard of, who, if you do a google search on her name will provide a list of negative words to describe her – anything from “demon” to “child killer”. Name called and voted right off the “island” (book of Genesis) simply because she refused to lie under Adam, wanted to be his equal.
From there on it just gets worse for Womankind. Eve is created as a more “suitable” (submissive) spouse and therein begins the second class citizenship of women. From the very garden of Eden – women are thrown aside for being self-aware, and are replaced with a mousey little thing who takes the blame for Adam’s choice and gladly lies under him (is beneath him). How lovely.
Are we REALLY supposed to believe in the “Divine truth” of a book that claims from the get-go there is a heirarchy of value for all creatures on earth? I won’t even touch upon the topic of how the bible judges other people / creatures as less worthy.
I can’t go for that, though clearly many can. The scholoarly debate can go on all day and night as far as I am concerned but the bottom line still is – is this really book I want to belive is divinely inspired? Where my gender is seen as a “weaker” vessel that must be “treasured” on the one hand yet kept “silent” on the other? Like property? Like a well-loved car – that one might shine, and polish and treasure, yet is still the owner of?
No thanks. The bible is a great book to read but I would not care to base my entire faith in its hands. I understand that many disagree, which is fine. Not so fine though is that to this DAY I – as one who belongs to a faith path which is sorely maligned in this country to this day (and most especially in places like this part of the country) – must “keep silent” if I want to remain free from assertions that my faith is “evil”. To this DAY a woman/Goddess-centered system of faith is considered anything from silly to demonic.
Regardless of which group of scholars decided what, the bottom line is – the OT and NT of the bible is exclusive, not inclusive. If you don’t do and be exactly what “God” decided is most worthy, then you are banished or belittled.
Gypsy, You said “how many who just read that last sentence had to wonder if I’m a man-hater? I bet @ least a few.” But you never told us. Are you?
Gypsy is definately not a man hater….she just likes to tell it like it is!
Or maybe like she believes it to be.
FeelingLucky -
Yup. That’s EXACTLY how I do belive it is!
No kidding.
I’ve mentioned the patriarchal standards of the Christian church more times than I can count (let’s say hundreds) and in ninety-five percent of those cases I’ve been met with “So you’re a feminazi?” or “Do you hate ALL men or just those who wrote the bible?” or even (this one was classic) “You LESBIAN!”
Tee hee hee.
Fun stuff, really – again, I’m not kidding, I loooooooooove to hear silly accusations passed off as “arguments”. It IS my experience that most people throw a “man hating” comment @ me when I mention this topic – so YES INDEED-Y it Is a thing I choose to believe, based on experience, maybe much how you might choose to believe the guy holding up a “will Work For Food Sign” WILL work for food – because most will. Some won’t, they prefer money.
So, there you go. Both you and CheekyMonkey are right on the money. Both correct in your assumptions on my motivations. Great going!
Thanks!
There are actually two very “funny” parts to this. 1st; The only person who threw out a “man hating” comment was you. 2n; You still never really answered the question I asked you. Spankyourmonkey gave a reply for you, but that doesn’t really count, does it?
First – you missed my entire point regarding the “man-hating” comment. If you want a DIFFERENT way for me to try to explain it, let me know and I’ll gladly attempt it one more time.
Second – Sorry! I spaced it.
Answer -
Nope.
Third – I don’t SEE a reply like the one you describe. (I am on a diffferent computer. This has happened before.) Please copy and paste it.
The Christian god (or bronze age warriors):
1 Samuel 15:3 etc. “the Lord says … [lots of killing...babies, animals...]”
versus
The UN council:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
The Christian god (or bronze age warriors):
Deuteronomy 15:17 “Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.”
versus
The UN council:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
And Christians tell us it is a sin to “go our own way…”.
You cannot serve two masters. Who looks wise and who a bronze age warrior?
Remember the story of the Passover? Moses keeps telling Pharaoh to let the people go from their bondage. Pharaoh refuses. Finally, according to the story, God comes up with a plan that breaks Pharaoh’s will to fight. What is the plan? The plan is to send an angel to kill all of the firstborn in Egypt. And we are told that this is exactly what happened. All throughout Egypt, mothers supposedly awoke to find their babies dead. …..an idea keeps coming to my mind. Wouldn’t it have been easier to threaten to kill Pharaoh? If he doesn’t respond, kill him. Suppose his successor maintained the bondage. Ok, then you kill the next Pharaoh. How many Pharaoh’s do you need to kill until one of them will listen and end the brutal slavery? How do you like that plan? Isn’t that more humane that killing thousands of innocent babies? Why not?
Imagine that you are watching the evening news. You see a picture of an American missile being skilfully guided so that it misses the enemy bunker and slams into an orphanage. The announcer tells you that this is exactly where the missile was supposed to hit. The announcer describes the precision that was necessary to avoid the tanks and hit babies. He tells you that these tactics will demoralize the opposition leaders, and cause them to submit to our requests. How do you react? You would be outraged, wouldn’t you? When civilized countries fight modern warfare, they take special precautions to avoid killing babies.
And we all know how much SOME posters here hate babies. I know of one that even claims to eat them for lunch!
Keep your babies locked up I say!
I guess the creator of life has the right to do whatever he wants. I believe that there are things that we cannot even begin to understand — even though we believe ourselves to be so highly intelligent. Sit down some time and explain to your dog how we (humans) put a man on the moon. See what his/her opinions on the subject are. Gauge his ability to comprehend it all. On a different scale, thats how we are when we try to fully understand all that God has done. The only difference is we really believe that we are smart. But then, so does Sammy the Rottweiler. We all have questions. Some have faith. Some believe it’s all BS. But one thing is for sure. Time goes by VERY fast. And soon you can ask him yourself.
What I find interesting is how Jeremy can make a sarcastic remark in regards to somebody’s post and site admin doesn’t say a word about it. But let somebody else make a sarcastic remark about one of Jeremy’s posts and the whole thing gets shut down! Please explain THAT one to me! [site admin: jeremy's remark was deleted, i was not sure on it so waited to see if anyone complained.]
Good post Guest. One thing though….do you REALLY believe we landed on the moon? I have a hard time believing that one. I mean c’mon, the technology we had back in the late sixties would not have made it possible for us to land on the moon. And if we did, why haven’t we gone back? Too many things just don’t add up & personally I don’t buy it.
But hey…to each his own I guess. We all believe in things we can’t explain in one form or another.
Now there is a GREAT topic for a discussion! Joe has been looking for one… will someone PLEASE start a discussion about our landing on the moon — did we, or did we not?
I agree! Excellent topic.
Moon landing: I’ve seen that video also, and it poses interesting skepticism.
Here are some of the moon landing hoax accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
However here are some of the rebuttals to the hoax accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations#Hoax_rebuttal_links
I’ve gotta say they make sense to me. I think the moon landing happened.
Yes, the moon landing was a hoax and I’m glad there is a discussion about it now. I was thinking while on the banks of the Snake about the water and how to choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.
The Curse of Greyface included the division of life into order/disorder as the essential positive/negative polarity, instead of building a game foundation with creative/destructive as the essential positive/negative. He has thereby caused man to endure the destructive aspects of order and has prevented man from effectively participating in the creative uses of disorder. Civilization reflects this unfortunate division.
huh?
I guess I should apologize for my sarcastic remark. Perhaps I should have worded my response more carefully. It was a good move deleting it, and I apologize.
But my point is this: people are so quick to point out the concepts in the bible that don’t jive with our modern sensibilities (the discussion on the baby-killing is a good example) but they ignore all of the other amazing prose and beautiful literature in the bible. Oh, and all the good stuff that’ll help you live your life more fully – you know, the “love your neighbor” stuff that Jesus taught.
I’m not saying we should cherry-pick the bible, but at least read the whole thing and think critically before you make your conclusions.
(oh, and I’ve seen the Peen & Teller’s BS episode that likely inspired the Genesis remark. It was really, really good, but really, really flawed, but that’s a discussion for another day.)
Think For Yourself.
Convictions Cause Convicts.
The Conclusion You Jump To May Be Your Own.
The Pun is Mightier then the Sword.
Truth: If its not one thing its another.
Reality: It all depends on how you look at it.
The Enlightened take things Lightly.
No Two Equals are the Same.
Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Is the thought of a Unicorn a Real Thought?
Curb Your Dogma.
And don’t forget that all things happen in threes. or is it fives? I forget.
My personal opinion only: The Bible is just the cliff notes version of God. If we confine Christianity to only what is written in the Bible, then we are putting limits on What Cannot Be Limited.
It’s all just hearsay in my opinion! None of us know what REALLY happened thousands of years ago, and if any of it is even true. If God performed all these amazing miracles way back then, why doesn’t he appear and perform them today? The bible was written by a bunch of old cronies who wanted to scare people into being civil law abiding folk.
This is why our government uses scare tactics to this day to keep the American people afraid. It’s quite sad how many people fall for all this global warming and doomsday crap.
Bubba – then why were so many biblical figures rebels against the government? Jesus comes to mind …
I never thought of Jesus as someone who rebelled against the government. Didn’t He say render unto Caesar that which is Caesars? Perhaps your interpretation of the bible has him as a rebel. I certainly don’t.
There were just as many NON-Biblical figures that were “rebels against the government” as well.
What does that have to do with anything? Our government and the media scare the American public into being stay at home scaredy cats so we’ll watch more tv and consume more crap that we don’t need. Which turns use into “lemmings” like Feelinlucky who think our government is the best thing since sliced bread! I love living in America don’t get me wrong, but people are so blind to all the evil that is our government its scary! We’ve got one of the most controlling, crooked, murderous, thought controlling governments in the world but people are so blind, they think we live in a free country. Why do you think the whole world thinks so poorly of us? Its only a matter of time before another country trys to invade and occupy our country just as we’ve done to Iraq. This country thinks they must police the world and its going to end up leading to our demise. If people don’t wake up and stop worrying only about themselves and where their going to buy their next double cheeseburger and SUV, its going to be too late.
Religion is just another scare tactic to keep people afraid of some unseen “higher power”. I don’t buy it. Religion is just big business….and I’m not buying!
Guest – “Render unto Caesar” was a statement of his mission as Messiah – the popular belief during Christ’s time was that the Messiah would deliver the Jewish people from Roman rule the same way Moses delivered them from Pharaoh. When Christ said that He wasn’t sent to defeat the Romans, this is when he delivered that particular line – he also said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Christ didn’t come to save His people from earthly oppression and evils, but to enable mankind to be truly free, on a spiritual, very basic level. This is what “render unto Caesar” means, not a plea to surrender to oppressive governments.
And, as my buddy Davin says, when someone is spiritually free, the urge to resist oppression comes naturally. This is why the Jewish authorities in Christ’s time wanted Him dead so badly – they recognized his ability to set people free and feared that power. So you see the whole “religion” thing is really very separate and indeed antithetical to Christ’s message – it was very “religious” people who called for His death! Yes, religion is about control and manipulation of doctrine – but Christianity and Jesus Christ is about freedom and unity with God.
Bubbajones – You seemed to have a lot of bumper-stickers in there, but what did you really say. You said “The Government is oppressive and I’m not religious”. That makes two of us – but again, do not confuse religion with Christianity. The religious authority usually turns out to express the most un-Christian (or Jewish, or Islamist, or Buddhist) ideals. For example, we’ve already covered how the Christian “religion” has manipulated Christ’s message, but there are so many more examples! The Dalli Lama (forgive my spelling if it’s incorrect, I’m not Buddhist) expresses concepts of personal freedom and non-violence, but if Tibet were freed today, what would happen? The Lama would return to a theocratic power and essentially enslave the people of Tibet, just as the Chinese did! There is nothing essentially wrong with Buddhist concepts or theology, but when enacted by people for personal gain, you get religion.
Jeremy, like I said you can interpret the bible any way you want to meet your own dogma, everyone does. Your Dali Lama remark shows so much ignorance I don’t know where to start, so I’ll just consider the source and let it go.
How am I ignorant about the Dali Lama? Isn’t it true that Tibet was a theocracy ruled by the Dali Lama before Chinese occupation? Isn’t it true that the Dali Lama is the supreme ruler in that theocracy and the people were subject to the absolute rule of the theocrat? And, isn’t it true that the “free Tibet” movement is all aimed at reinstating the Lama into power? Tell me my ignorance here.
You can call me whatever you want and insinuate whatever character flaw about me – I have a thick skin, I can take it – but at least back it up with some kind of reasonable argument. Like it’s been said – attack my argument, not my person. You can maim me, and my argument will still stand. So please, argue my point here. I believe I’ve interpreted the fact correctly, and if I’m mistaken, it’s so much more useful to make a counterargument than attack me personally.
ps Speaking of ignorance, your first statement was really, really shallow and I’d appreciate if we’d keep the level of discussion at least on a very basically civilized level here. If I’ve misinterpreted the Bible to meet my own dogma, the show me the error of my ways. I do, however, get the feeling that most of there people on this site who attack the Bible and Christianity know very little about either. But then again, we fear and hate what we don’t understand, correct?
~tapping in~
Since Jeremy invoked me by quotation …
Bubba: You are right on about the state of our country and that many non-biblical figures stood up (and are standing up) against oppression and tyranny. The point of the Biblical accounts was that these people followed and obeyed God, which usually lead them in direct opposition to current rulers and regimes. The ones that didn’t follow and obey God and chose to bow to the rulers of men, consequently ended up in opposition to God which turned out to be worse for them.
I also agree with your point of religion being used as a tool of fear and manipulation. Sadly it has, but it really is a misnomer. It is like saying a hammer is bad because people have used it to bash in some heads. The hammer is really meant to build houses and does a great job at it.
My spiritual experience is consistant with what is outlined in the Bible. When I am honest, the truths that I face being in obedience to God do place me in a position of being in opposition to much of what is happeneing in the world. I saw what was really happening before my experience, but now it is clearer and makes much more sense to me. I see and I have hope and and I have peace, where as before I still saw, but I had neither.
True revolution begins in the heart of a man.
~tapping out~
I have created another site for religious discussion and debate.
http://religiondebates.blogspot.com
Anyone may comment without registration there. If you want a new post/topic started, please just request it in the comments.
I will not be participating or moderating the subjects over there. If it gets too heated and Google shuts it down, there’s not much I can do. I have seen some rancorous stuff at blogger, though.
I wish we could do these discussions at IFz, but they stir up too many emotions and can turn people off from the more normal discussions that are popular with a larger audience.
Again, I’m discouraging religious discussions at IFz, and giving those who want that an outlet at
http://religiondebates.blogspot.com
For those who want religious debates, I hope this becomes a flourishing community for you.
For those who did not want religious debates at IFz, I hope to see more participation in comments and article-writing of other subjects.
Dun-dun-dun.
Comments on this entry are closed.