![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteCould you elaborate on that question?Originally Posted by Gus
Right ... so that explains it all how?
Right ... so that explains it all how?
Could you elaborate on that question?Right ... so that explains it all how?
There are areas of overlap and indeed recently there have been more theological debates and discussions between LDS and mainstream churches. But there is a fundamental difference in that the main source of authority for LDS is the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.
Completely unrelated but it was interesting in an evening class tonight which was about 'beauty' - it was suggested that you can have 'ugly' theology - such as theologies that have sought to justify racism or sectarianism. A lot of ungodly and ugly things have been done 'in God's name' over the centuries.
Not a question ... a statement. If I understood what you said correctly, Science says that the Big Bang happened ... for no real reason, from components that just happened to be there. That doesn't sound like much of an explanation to me.
ANYWAY this is getting way off thread. The question remains ... what do you think it means to be a christian ... a sad deluded fool or someone who positively contributes if they are true to the teachings of Christ.
I don't understand the point you are making.
For a start, criminal sanctions don't make people lead 'good' lives, they make (or at least are aimed at) people leading lawful lives. The point is you can ignore people who need help, keep things to yourself that other people desperately need, and so on and so on, and there are no punishments in this life.
When you say 'checked it out', would I be right to interpret that as 'seemed like a nice idea', or if not what methodology did you use in 'checking it out'?
Loads of em - and we even know about some of themAs far as I am aware (which isn't very!!) None of the earlier religions (to Islam/Christianity/Judaism) were monotheistic!
And there is/was also nothing to stop a monotheistic religion like Christianity borrowing from polytheistic religions.
Ahh, then you don't understand what I said correctly. As you say, we're off-topic. Start another thread if you're interested.
Methodology??
... ok. Initially, it 'seemed' like an interesting (and certainly different) idea. I considered it, over a number of months, and found that, not only did it not conflict with anything in my current belief/value system, it really fit quite well - the only issue being with the word 'god' [having previously had catholicism shoved down my throat at boarding school].
Finally, after adopting it ... well, there was really no need to adopt it at all. All I was simply doing, was giving a name (or description, really) to my current philosophy (essentially, pagan).
Make sense?
Sounded to me like you were saying 'God' is the same as the 'Universe' (you said swap the words 'god' for 'universe').
Of all the explanations that swirl around 'God', mysterious entities and creation myths, the one I have most alignment with is the God is Mother Nature one. I can just about see using the word 'God' as a metaphor for Nature/The universe. I think one of the reasons I like it simply because it distils 'God' down to something truly wonderful. I.E. Nature/The universe, and completely ignores the human detritus added by various groups over the centuries.
So I can go with that
OK, my understanding of this comment:
Was that you assumed people managed to lead a good life without any "regulatory system" to live within - religious or otherwise.
My point was that we all live in these systems - sometimes several at once - which help us lead "good" lives. Whether a system is religious or not, each system has carrots and sticks.
A religious system is not - to me - inherently better or worse than any other. And if it leads people to live "better" (by my judgement) lives, then surely it's a Good Thing?
Yep. That would be the first of my options...it seemed like a nice idea.
OK, I understand now.
That's my point. Not everyone does need carrots and sticks to live a good life. (A good life, by the way, is more than just avoiding criminal convictions.) I'm not a saint; but I help people out. If I see people in trouble, I will go the extra mile to get them out of it.
A friend recently needed some legal help so I spent - er, about 12 hours, I suppose - sorting things out. I did that as a favour. No stick, no carrot, I didn't do it because it will increase my stock with the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other deity. That's what I mean by saying that a rationalist lives a good life because he or she wants to; there's an element of punishment and reward in christianity that means that no christian can claim the same thing in as self-evident a fashion. (I should say that I've done other things which I would not boast about, so this isn't 'look at me I'm wonderful!')
No, not that either. Obviously not one of my clearest posts.
Very commendable though this is, I disagree that anyone ever does something for nothing .... charitable or not.
For everything has cause and effect; action/response.
Experiencing someone, unfairly, having a bad time has an effect .... sadness, anger, (for some, maybe interest .... maybe something more positive).
Genuinely helping that person, rather than ignoring them can only come from fulfilling and adhering to some belief/value system (or addressing the negative response) .... otherwise ... why bother? Where is the motivation (positive or negative)?
With motivation, action is done; ie motivation creates the energy behind the action; no motivation, no energy, no action.
As I say, charity is very commendable, but there is, inevitably, a payback; even if that is but a nice warm feeling inside!
Should someone claim to get absolutely nothing from being charitable, I will not believe them, and might suggest that they look inwards to check that they really do get nothing, and to examine their motivation, and what they might have achieved by their actions.
That may be true.
However, the fact remains that some people are friendly and helpful and go out of their way to be 'good'; other people don't; and still other people are positively nasty and revel in embarrassing or betraying or causing misfortune to others.
So at there comes a point where we have to say that it isn't relevant to argue that, at some level, people do good because it makes them feel better, because the important question is why does doing good make them feel better, when clearly for some people either doing good doesn't have that effect or they don't care to feel better.
Amongst other things, for some people it means a license to be disgust-ingly greedy, and for others it clearly means failing to exercise proper skepticism.
And here is the proof.
Something else it means - for some people.
It makes me sad, and it makes me angry, and it makes me sad again, and it needs to be stopped.
I had to have a blood transfusion after my daughter was born. I can't imagine risking my life or allowing my children to grow up motherless because of my belief or for any other reason.
What's wrong with these people? Can anyone on this forum justify that woman or her husbands decision not to have the blood?
Although I TOTALLY disagree with their interpretation of the Bible ..... whats more important .. this mere flicker of time we spend in this existence or the eternity in the afterlife? If you seriously believed that your path to eternal salvation would be lost if you had a blood transfusion ... wouldn't you take your chances and refuse it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks