- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
No If I as a human have the capacity to forgive & forget without needing to extract a punishment why would God need to punish someone in order to forgive? At it’s base the atonement makes no sense and is simply a redo of a god sending a son to earth or a god standing up for man found in so many religions. Hercules & Prometheus come to mind?
Frankly I find the whole concept that forgiveness requires death and punishment as upsetting and possibly even immoral.
I find the new interpretation espoused by Bednar among others that Jesus suffered for each person individually one by one to be even more out there. Then you get the crazy concepts that infinite means it goes to all worlds and all time – including in the past. Weird stuff.
With that said if I ever were to find that Christ is real, I would absolutely offer my complete allegiance. A broken heart and contrite spirit would be His. Of course, I believe that is exactly as likely as Zeus being real.
Yes. The idealized concept of the person Jesus Christ as Savior, and the effort I put into trying to follow this idealized teacher and hero/savior, is a very large part of what got me to where I am. I like where I am. I feel “saved” from my “sins” and fully accepted by God … even though I see all that very differently than I used to. I am satisfied with my life, generally.
I think the historical Jesus was probably an interesting preacher and teacher, and was very likely a self-actualized man I would have admired. I think the idealized concept of that same man has a lot of power, and in most cases is an ideal worth trying to emulate. I’m a little sketchy about some of his early followers who invented a religion around the stories of his “ministry.” But I think they probably had the best intentions in mind.
I should note there is a LOT I really like about the concept of Jesus Christ. At the root as see the teachings of the New Testament as a statement of “love thy neighbor”.
The character Jesus whether literal or figurative fought against the status quo, rules & regulations, and cared about the individual. The whole concept is to care more about helping the person that following the societal demands.
It’s a fantastic lesson.
bc_pg wrote:I should not there is a LOT I really like about the concept of Jesus Christ.
At the root as see the teachings of the New Testament as a statement of “love thy neighbor”.
The character Jesus whether literal or figurative fought against the status quo, rules & regulations, and cared about the individual. The whole concept is to care more about helping the person that following the societal demands.
It’s a fantastic lesson.
Yes. That is why I can squeak by with a yes.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
My testimony of Jesus is not based on the historical accounts or the miracles recorded in the scriptures. Those are all stories and allegories to teach lessons, some may have actually happened, and some may not have…our scriptures were handed down for generations orally before being recorded, so the literal historical perspective is sketchy to me. However, I believe in 1a, Heavenly Father, and His Plan, where Jesus Christ (question 1b) becomes the central role in carrying out the Plan.
I do not see any evidence to make me think otherwise. I can respect others’ opinions who do not understand the Atonement or need for a Savior, but in my heart, I still believe in Jesus Christ. It works for me.
In fact, it is the very root of my spirituality, upon which everything else hangs on. And it feels right to me. For me, Jesus Christ is “The Way, the Truth, and the Life”. I think I could walk away from the Church. But I can’t see how I could no longer believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior.
doug wrote:It never occurs to me to say “I really don’t know” about a religious, spiritual, or even a historical idea or notion, because not knowing is second nature for me. “Knowing” any of these things is not only not possible (for me), but the very notion of “knowing” them doesn’t even have any meaning to me. I don’t want to veer off into a discussion about who can and can’t “know”, and I understand that there are those that believe that they
canknow, etc., but for now I have to agree to disagree, or chalk it up to differences in personality and/or the definition of what it means to “know”.
doug, you’re right on here. Lao Tzu said, “Not knowing is true knowledge, presuming to know is a disease.” By that standard, we have a lot of sick people around us…I have defined a knowable quantity for God, Jesus, and Holy Ghost that are eminently true and normative for me. I do not know the truthfulness of the standard definitions of these things. To say that ‘god the father’ is the state of being when I’m one with my inner soul and all that is around me — that’s a definition not shared by others, but works for me. To say that “Christ” is the idea of “Being” authentically real in the present in harmony with all around me — again non-standard definition, but it works for me. To say that the power of god is nature, as shown in section 88, and that ‘a god’ is a ‘being’ who is so totally in harmony with that power that s/he is one with it… these are real things to me. I can know them, and be confident of them. Is there a being that is a father of my spirits who is ‘a god’ by my definition? Distinctly possible, but I don’t know. I have faith in such a being, meaning I trust that the guidance I get from ‘god’ is right for me and I act on it, but I don’t know that such a being exists. It doesn’t matter, because I have ‘faith’ in it, which means I accept the definition as possible, will work as if it’s true, but I specifically don’t know it’s true.
Some people will think my approach to be inferior to the confident testimony of “I know that God is the father of my spirit”. and with all due respect to that person, I believe they do not know such a thing — they only feel that they know it. I’m simply trying to be honest.
and so as to not veer off topic — they don’t ask if you know. Only if you have faith in and a testimony of said concepts.
Quote:One thing that is really compelling for me is how the archetype of a savior figure seems to pop up EVERYWHERE in mythologies of various cultures. The idea that all of these things point to Jesus as the Savior is something that I might be able to hang my hat on.
I actually find this to be evidence of exactly the opposite. I find it compelling evidence that it is a myth drawn from myths in other religions.
A common Mormon apologetic approach is that Adam had all the truth – it got corrupted – and then restored. I don’t buy this for a second. First of all, the odds of anything Moses or earlier being historical are pretty much zero. Second, the real history and anthropology don’t support this at all.
On a different topic:
I think you are being way too kind on “I know”. I see it being a mind control, group control technique. The whole “I know” phrase plays into the huge doctrinal and cultural problem that anyone questioning their testimony at all shows a personal weakness.
bc_pg wrote:If I as a human have the capacity to forgive & forget without needing to extract a punishment why would God need to punish someone in order to forgive? At it’s base the atonement makes no sense and is simply a redo of a god sending a son to earth or a god standing up for man found in so many religions. Hercules & Prometheus come to mind?
I find comfort in the idea of a Savior. I believe that the concept of a Savior speaks to the needs of a fallen human condition. Perhaps that is why other religions also have developed variations on this concept.
I currently find power in the concept of the Trinity. I believe that it allows me to build relationships with the divine without worrying about divisions and delegations. I can have a Father/Son relationship and a Savior/Beneficiary relationship as though They were one person without getting caught up in “They are separate in being but one in purpose – but one may not approach the Father except through the son, thus pray to the Father in the name of the Son. Sometimes the Son speaks as though he were the Father in a process known as divine investiture of authority.” Those delegatory details for me get in the way of my personal relationship building.
So I find beauty in the concept that my Father runs to me and Saves me of the worst parts of myself. I admit that it may be imprecise and unbiblical – but it stirs me.
Following this concept, the “condescension of God” takes on new meaning:
Quote:The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi1(c. 600 B.C.) was asked by an angel, “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” (1 Ne. 11:16).
The word “condescension” implies “voluntary descent,” “submission,” and “performing acts which strict justice does not require.” This definition is particularly applicable to Jesus in the portrayal of him by prophets who lived before his birth and who affirmed: “God himself shall come down” to make an atonement (Mosiah 15:1); “the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself . . . into the hands of wicked men” (1 Ne. 19:10); “the great Creator . . . suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh” (2 Ne. 9:5); and “he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin” (2 Ne. 2:7). “The Lord Omnipotent,” said King Benjamin, “shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay” (Mosiah 3:5).
So, Yes – I have Faith in Jesus Christ. I love the concept of moving from a God who demands sacrifice to a God who provides the sacrifice. I just believe that when the time came/comes – my God and my Father, “offereth himself” in my place.
Quote:I find comfort in the idea of a Savior. I believe that the concept of a Savior speaks to the needs of a fallen human condition. Perhaps that is why other religions also have developed variations on this concept.
If this is what has meaning to you, great. I don’t want to detract from that.
The way I look at things is the biologically/evolutionarily humans are essentially animals. I don’t see human’s as fallen at all. Rather I think they can choose to rise above the animal to be humane.
In a sense I kind of subscribe the the scripture “the natural man is an enemy to God.” Except I see it more as the natural animalistic human nature can be overcome by humanity.
So in essence I don’t see humans as fallen at all, but as learning to be elevated from our natural state.
Probably 2 sides of the same coin as what you are saying – but to me the idea the humans are “fallen” is what I don’t buy.
bc_pg wrote:Probably 2 sides of the same coin as what you are saying – but to me the idea the humans are “fallen” is what I don’t buy.
The funny thing is that I actually agree with you more than my original wording would indicate. When I said “fallen human condition,” I was using my Mormon-speak for the human condition wherein we fall and fail – sometimes because of what could be viewed as mistakes – sometimes due to things that are completely out of our control. Because of our human limitations we all need forgiveness/charity that we don’t deserve. My understanding of Mormon Doctrine encompasses these limitations and failings of the human condition under the term “fallen.”
I believe that many people need permission to forgive themselves for things that are past. For some people the idea of a Savior provides that permission and allows them to live happier lives than what otherwise might have been possible. I believe that I am one of these people.
Quote:I believe that many people need permission to forgive themselves for things that are past. For some people the idea of a Savior provides that permission and allows them to live happier lives than what otherwise might have been possible. I believe that I am one of these people.
I’m not surprised to hear we are fairly close in belief – it sounded like we might be and it was just an issue of wording.
For me I find it easier to forgive myself without the concept of “sin”. So I guess the idea of a judgmental hindered more than helped personal forgiveness. Again, two sides of the same coin I think.
Fwiw, I also accept evolution as the process by which we have our mortal bodies – that, in that sense, our “fallen” state is absolutely a “natural” state. I know Jesus is the Christ. I believe it’s okay to say “I know”. It has not been revealed to me by flesh and blood, but by my Father in Heaven through the Holy Ghost. Shawn wrote:I know Jesus is the Christ. I believe it’s okay to say “I know”. It has not been revealed to me by flesh and blood, but by my Father in Heaven through the Holy Ghost.
thank you shawn, well said. Job said it as well —Job 19:23-27 wrote:Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
To say “I Know” has scriptural precident.cheers!
wayfarer wrote:and so as to not veer off topic — they don’t ask if you know. Only if you have faith in and a testimony of said concepts.
I know.
Good discussion, by the way. It’s helpful to me to hear such a range of belief respectfully discussed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.