- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
No one really knows for sure what exactly he was thinking and why but if nothing else I still think Paul was inspired to popularize a superior belief system that in its most basic form really is “good news” compared to anything else people have come up with before or sinceI have no doubt that Paul was very committed to his story. And like so many other religious leaders throughout history, he may have been completely convinced his inspiration was from God. And maybe it was?
And maybe the suicide bombers that are also totally convinced that they have been inspired by God to strap bombs to themselves, run into a building and kill those infidels along with taking their own life, are also hearing God’s voice.
Can anybody really know exactly what another’s witness is?
When I read a few books regarding the Constantinian selection of Paul’s version of the Jesus story, it was clear to me that it was very politically motivated. Then when the prior Pagan traditions of virgin birth, half-God/half human deity, atonement of mankind’s sins, resurrection, etc. etc, were adopted (there is no real evidence of any of these things actually happening in Jesus’ life — just the hearsay stories to Paul’s disciples…Bart Ehrlman is quite thorough on this point), along with studying Joseph Campbell’s great work of comparitive mythologies…, I’m quite resolved in my position.
I don’t see Paul’s writings as any more or less “inspired” than hundreds of other enlightened spiritual leaders. Many have sacrificed much, including their lives for their beliefs and causes. So my approach is to incorporate what touches me, is “good” for me in my life, and not feel guilty or obligated to accept what doesn’t resonate as “true” for me.
Just to be clear, for the sake of the culture of our little community, a believing perspective is completely acceptable. If someone sees the letters of Paul, for example, as very close to what happened. That is fine. It may have been that way. It is possible. Even if it is not possible, it may still be important and valuable. The ability to be comfortable with and even celebrate other perspectives is an important attribute to being at peace as a doubter (on some level) within the larger population of the orthodox within Mormonism.
Brian Johnston wrote:Just to be clear, for the sake of the culture of our little community, a believing perspective is completely acceptable. If someone sees the letters of Paul, for example, as very close to what happened. That is fine. It may have been that way. It is possible. Even if it is not possible, it may still be important and valuable.
The ability to be comfortable with and even celebrate other perspectives is an important attribute to being at peace as a doubter (on some level) within the larger population of the orthodox within Mormonism.
Absolutely! I see it all as “story” anyway, and we all need our stories or else we go crazy! Each person’s story is different than anybody else’s, so if we spend so much time and energy selling ours, we’ll never have time to live our own!
😆 Brian Johnston wrote:Cadence wrote:I would be more apt to go with a logical and reasoned out approach than a sincere one. Not that that approach is full proof but at least it is generally based on something tangible and verifiable.
So how would you exactly test for the tangible in religion?
A religious leaders says “Live your life this way: _________________ . If you do those things, you will have a happy and meaningful life. Also, you will be rewarded in heaven.”
So how do you verify that? Sample endorphin levels at various times of the day over several decades? That might be a “proof” of happiness. But how do you measure a “meaningful” life? There certainly isn’t any gizmo with a meter to test for rewards in heaven.
That is sort of my point. You can not test or verify religious beliefs. That is why this board and others are full of people discussing the validity of spiritual witnesses. It is all built on faith and emotion and coincidental happenings. Maybe it is all true maybe it is not. No way to know for sure.
Quote:No way to know for sure.
That might be true for you, Cadence. It also might be true for me with regard to lots of things – but it might not be true for me or others with regard to some things.
Please understand where I’m coming from when I say this, but one sign that someone still has at least a foot solidly in Stage 3 is when they insist with complete certainty that those who are certain are certainly wrong.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:No way to know for sure.
That might be true for you, Cadence. It also might be true for me with regard to lots of things – but it might not be true for me or others with regard to some things.
Please understand where I’m coming from when I say this, but one sign that someone still has at least a foot solidly in Stage 3 is when they insist with complete certainty that those who are certain are certainly wrong.
I think anything is possible. Maybe there is some power or ability that some have to know things of a spiritual matter to the point of certainty. Maybe many truths are self evident to them. I personally do not have that ability, even after spending many years trying to obtain it. But generally to have a certainty about something you have to be able to verify it and replicate the experiment. This is why it it so hard for skeptics to validate spiritual manifestations of others. They can not be reproduced.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:No way to know for sure.
That might be true for you, Cadence. It also might be true for me with regard to lots of things – but it might not be true for me or others with regard to some things.
Please understand where I’m coming from when I say this, but one sign that someone still has at least a foot solidly in Stage 3 is when they insist with complete certainty that those who are certain are certainly wrong.
I don’t know ANYTHING, and perhaps Cadence is correct,
Quote:I think anything is possible. Maybe there is some power or ability that some have to know things of a spiritual matter to the point of certainty. Maybe many truths are self evident to them.
But…..I don’t want to be called a Korihor, but how can ANYONE know of anything for certainty? The only way someone can know of certainty of spiritual matters is through a spiritual testimony which comes from emotional responses – and I’m telling, the followers of Jim Jones had a spiritual testimony to the “point of certainty” they were following god’s plan. They KNEW! That tells me that, “no, we cannot know of things for certainty,” OR, the Jim Jones clan WERE following God’s plan, and we have all been fooled.
😈 I kind of agree with SD that I’m glad I don’t know because I’m not sure “I could handle the truth.” Plus, not knowing makes life grand, IMO. I’m kind of starting to enjoy not knowing. Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope to someday get a firm footing into Fowler Stage 5.
😮 I told my TBM brother (whom I’m trying to rebuild some bridges) that JS told the “brothers” that “faith was a gift of the spirit.” I believe him. Their are some who have the gift to believe by faith. Some do not. But I would still contend that those who “believe” do so out of faith, which comes from emotions, they do not believe because they are certain. My bro told me that “he knows” blah blah blah. I ask him how he knows. His response, “I just know.” Ohhhh, the good ol’ days when just hearing and bearing testimony was all it took.
Having read through the various posts pertaining to Candence’s post, I feel compelled to write that I do not think that any of them have truly answered her question(s). What she is asking, ultimately, is, if the Church is true, why does there need to be ANY questionable problems associated with it. Why is there any reason to question it at all, again, if it is true? It is a question I have long had–why should I be so challenged to believe given that there are so many fallacies in the church’s history? If the church is the one and only true church, and I found it, why would God make it so difficult for me to believe once the reality is revealed?
I feel her pain because I totally agree, and nobody’s response has rectified the issue. The responses, for the most part, are classic examples of the tortured logic that believers concoct to keep the faith.
I respect those who want to remain Mormon and have made efforts to accept the realities of the problems that are evident with it, but, Candence gets to the heart of the matter–the church clearly is not the ONLY true church. And, given that reality, then it is all open to whatever.
curt wrote:Having read through the various posts pertaining to Candence’s post, I feel compelled to write that I do not think that any of them have truly answered her question(s).
What she is asking, ultimately, is, if the Church is true, why does there need to be ANY questionable problems associated with it. Why is there any reason to question it at all, again, if it is true? It is a question I have long had–why should I be so challenged to believe given that there are so many fallacies in the church’s history? If the church is the one and only true church, and I found it, why would God make it so difficult for me to believe once the reality is revealed?
I feel her pain because I totally agree, and nobody’s response has rectified the issue. The responses, for the most part, are classic examples of the tortured logic that believers concoct to keep the faith.
I respect those who want to remain Mormon and have made efforts to accept the realities of the problems that are evident with it, but, Candence gets to the heart of the matter–the church clearly is not the ONLY true church. And, given that reality, then it is all open to whatever.
You made my point exactly. Thank you. Why all the misdirection for anything that is suppose to be so true, it is not shall I say logical
By the way Cadence is a he, but everyone seems to make that error. Cadence is a term we use in cycling to measure the number of revolutions per minute you turn the pedals. If you keep a high cadence you are more efficient and can go farther with less energy. It is counterintuitive to the way most beginners ride a bicycle. It just seemed appropriate for me when I was looking for a name. I use Spock as my avatar because I believe logical and reasoned thinking is critical to finding truth.
curt, with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, the exact post title question is: Quote:“Why are these truths not self evident?”
Imo, the answer is:
Quote:“Truth isn’t self-evident – at least, much of it isn’t. If it were self-evident, everyone would understand and agree.”
or, phrased differently:
Quote:“Certainty just isn’t part of the plan. It can’t be and still afford real growth.”
That’s the gist of what multiple answers said, and to label it as “tortured logic” and dismiss everyone’s genuine and on-point responses as frivilous, silly, shallow, naive, ignorant, or any other pejorative term . . .
I simply disagree – strongly. I don’t think truth is self-evident, and I don’t think saying so and explaining why someone says so is tortured logic, mental gymnastics or any other phrasing that can allow you to reject that conclusion out of hand.
Rix wrote:…And maybe the suicide bombers that are also totally convinced that they have been inspired by God to strap bombs to themselves, run into a building and kill those infidels along with taking their own life, are also hearing God’s voice…Can anybody really know exactly what another’s witness is?…I don’t see Paul’s writings as any more or less “inspired” than hundreds of other enlightened spiritual leaders.
I don’t think Christianity really has much of anything to do with Islamic Jihadists. In principle, Christianity is a non-violent and peaceful religion that teaches forgiveness, loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, etc., so I don’t really see the comparison to Islam.
I wasn’t trying to claim that everything Paul ever said is inspired; my point is that I take his story and opinions more seriously than many others because I don’t believe that he was just making things up in a casual or haphazard way. It wasn’t just talk, he walked the walk and we can’t necessarily say the same thing about many other authors of so-called scriptures.
curt wrote:Having read through the various posts pertaining to Candence’s post, I feel compelled to write that I do not think that any of them have truly answered her question(s)…if the Church is true, why does there need to be ANY questionable problems associated with it. Why is there any reason to question it at all, again, if it is true?…nobody’s response has rectified the issue. The responses, for the most part, are classic examples of the tortured logic that believers concoct to keep the faith…
Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see any tortured logic in my original response:
DevilsAdvocate wrote:To some extent it all depends on whose story you believe. The Church has its official story that TBMs tend to accept at face value but others have a harder time believing all this.
In other words, these ideas are not really undeniable truths they are just the Church’s official story that some people believe and others don’t. Most popular religions never were about irrefutable proof to begin with so if you don’t have genuine faith in something then you don’t need to believe it, problem solved.
Old-Timer wrote:one sign that someone still has at least a foot solidly in Stage 3 is when they insist with complete certainty that those who are certain are certainly wrong.
Wouldn’t that be Stage 4?
😆 Did you accidentally say 3? Or are you using hyperbole? (Sorry. The engineer in me coming out.)Isn’t it part of the church teachings, that there is a purpose to this life? That purpose cannot be achieved by God giving us the answers and making all truth self-evident. We must prove ourselves, despite being limited in our knowledge and understanding. Some truths must be hidden in order to make this life achieve its purpose. We need to seek the Truth and turn to God to find it piece by piece…not stumble across the answer book and then have it all figured out. There is no end to the journey of seeking truth in this life. It is designed that way. Because of this…I think Obiwan says it best (see below).
Yes, Heber13. I think the real truths are so self-evident you can’t even speak them; you can only live them. That is why we are here: to live them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.