The thread of movie titles and absence of badges. In previous episodes, it was signs you're getting older, chiropractic vs. medicine, atheism vs. Mormonism and religion vs. science with no existentialism nor philosophy thrown in
-
-
If Deity is all knowing, they know the future and if they know the future they cannot be all powerful because that suggests they cannot change it, otherwise they would not be able to predict it.
-
But I think it is disingenuous to say that I respect their belief when I find it completely irrational.
Just don't expect for people to think you're a nice or reasonable person when you say that sort of thing out loud in a confrontational way.
-
Just that if omniscient then god knew that the decision (to only allow white clergy) would change, but if omnipotent it was the right decision by definition, and so would not need to change.
As for the rest of the debate it is always an easy target to go after the religious, but on this point I think you are hiding from liability behind your God. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then (given today's morals). Only... By accepting this and condemning it, you would also fault your god, and so you end up in an undefendable position.
-
If Deity is all knowing, they know the future and if they know the future they cannot be all powerful because that suggests they cannot change it, otherwise they would not be able to predict it.
Sure they could, because they would know how their actions would influence the future. Prediction still works.
-
But they have already made those actions because they knew they would make them, therefore they cannot change them ... it is a paradox.
-
me? not I. I'm withholding judgement on the whole matter until such time as more data is input into the system.
<lebowski> I meant "you" like the royal "we", know what I mean...man? </lebowski>
if we treat it as an investigation, then we learn much more, about ourselves, our religions (all of them) and our world.
Yeah, name me a religion that truly believes that and would allow it to happen. It would be a short list:
- none of them
-
Do you have the same view about Russell's Teapot?
That's always seemed a silly distraction rather than an argument to be taken seriously.
-
I never bring it up unless directly questioned about it.
-
Even if what they believe is preposterous and demonstrably false?
Like, "all chiropractors are charlatans?"
-
I meant "you" like the royal "we", know what I mean...man?
i know what you meant, just felt it important to later arguments in my post to clarify.
no offence felt and i home none given..
-
That's always seemed a silly distraction rather than an argument to be taken seriously.
Why? I think it is an excellent representation of the absurdity behind how belief in $DEITY is a belief with absolutely zero evidence and no way to disprove. It is a self-reinforcing fallacy.
-
Like, "all chiropractors are charlatans?"
See? Now you get it. Was that so hard? All chiropractors are charlatans.
<I know what you meant, I decided to turn the phrase around on you.>
-
The Church of LDS has no right to tell people what is moral and what is not.
They have at least as much as @SlackerD does.
-
They have at least as much as @SlackerD does.
Because he has less people voting on his idea of morality?
-
That's a pretty dickish stance.
What time is it where he is? He may have been drinking again.
-
Just that if omniscient then god knew that the decision (to only allow white clergy) would change, but if omnipotent it was the right decision by definition, and so would not need to change.
As for the rest of the debate it is always an easy target to go after the religious, but on this point I think you are hiding from liability behind your God. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then (given today's morals). Only... By accepting this and condemning it, you would also fault your god, and so you end up in an undefendable position.
So you're saying that God never gives commandments based on the circumstances of the world? Look at it this way:
In the mid-1800s, when the LDS church was first growing in the US, it was experiencing heavy persecution, simply because of our teachings. Had they allowed black men, free or former slaves, to hold the priesthood, it would most likely have increased the amount of persecution that our church received at that time. I suspect that an all knowing God commanded that the priesthood be kept only for white men at that time in order to reduce the amount of persecution suffered by the members of the church in that era.
As for the timing of when the commandment was reversed, the prophet at the time (Spencer W. Kimball) had been receiving many letters asking when the priesthood would be extended to black males. He took the matter to God in prayer and received revelation that is was time. I suspect, though I don't know, that this may have been a situation when God was waiting for the Prophet to ask. Often, God withholds things until we ask, because by asking we show that we know we are ready.
So from that example, God gave a commandment to help protect his growing church, and then ammended that commandment when the members were ready.
-
In the mid-1800s, when the LDS church was first growing in the US, it was experiencing heavy persecution, simply because of our teachings. Had they allowed black men, free or former slaves, to hold the priesthood, it would most likely have increased the amount of persecution that our church received at that time. I suspect that an all knowing God commanded that the priesthood be kept only for white men at that time in order to reduce the amount of persecution suffered by the members of the church in that era.
Yeah, I can see how an all-loving god would not want his followers to do what was right because it might not be politically advantageous at the time. Membership does matter more than justice and all...
Often, God withholds things until we ask, because by asking we show that we know we are ready.
So basically, your version of god waits for you to present the ideas and then he has veto power? Doesn't seem very all-powerful to me...
-
Lots and lots of people, for religious reasons, wish to stop science because as understandings of science increase, the margins that god can exist in become smaller and smaller.
Where have you seen this? I'm not aware of "lots and lots of people."
When you have religious people who wish to put "intelligent design" in the textbooks of impressionable children, that harms society as a whole.
Ah, this is what you're thinking. I think that first, you're inflating stuff. Also, while I wouldn't put ID into a science textbook, I don't see anything about it that contradicts current science.
People all over believe science (or anything else) when it confirms their beliefs and want to ignore it or claim that it's wrong when it contradicts their beliefs. There's nothing special about religion and science in this case, and in the West, the two have gone together for a long time, even though there are some famous conflicts.
-
Yeah, name me a religion that truly believes that and would allow it to happen. It would be a short list:
- none of them
Actually:
Not questioning our beliefs. On the contrary, we teach our members to seek out truth wherever it is found, to question and learn. But, most of all, to find out for themselves the truth of anything. A person cannot maintain lifelong faith in a living prophet or the divinity of The Book of Mormon simply because their parents taught them that way. So we are taught to find out for ourselves. And finding something out for yourself always involves some questioning.
Hey, look! The LDS Church teaches people to seek for truth wherever it may be found. We believe that the 6 days of creation referenced in the bible were actually creation periods, and that they weren't necessarily equal in length. We believe that God used tools that we may or may not know about to create the world.
You were saying?
-
Scientology doesn't like poor or non-influential people.
-
Or, god could have formulated the original decision such that the conditions for when to revese it were already there. TDD, and a simple flaunt of ye olde omniscience...
A polled system is just so much easier to rig.
Besides, a bit of mass-persecution never stopped god in the past so why the sudden change of strategy?
-
Hey, look! The LDS Church teaches people to seek for truth wherever it may be found.
And what if that search led you to believe that Mormonism was rubbish? Would your church support that? That was the possibility I was referring to.
-
It loves them when they join the SeaOrg and can be used as (basically) slave labor.
-
only if we treat religion as a panacea, if we treat it as an investigation, then we learn much more, about ourselves, our religions (all of them) and our world.
There are also interesting questions to be asked around why religions arise in the first place, and what that says about the human condition...
-
I started drinking after.
-
I don't see anything about it that contradicts current science.
Besides the fact that there is no proof of it? No testable hypothesis? That seems to contradict science...
-
So basically, your version of god waits for you to present the ideas and then he has veto power? Doesn't seem very all-powerful to me...
It's a teaching method. I use it with my children sometimes.
-
Are, btw, women allowed as priests yet?
-
(semi-)?infinite plane of darkness
From that point of view, we are an extraordinarily local phenomenon.
-
Are, btw, women allowed as priests yet?
Oh god no. Silly women cannot be trusted with such things.
-
Besides, a bit of mass-persecution never stopped god in the past so why the sudden change of strategy?
Because the church was already going to be under mass persecution. Why add another dose on top?
Like I said: that's just a guess of mine. I don't know what God's reasoning was.
-
If Deity is all knowing, they know the future and if they know the future they cannot be all powerful because that suggests they cannot change it, otherwise they would not be able to predict it.
Are you implying that Deity is inside of causality, and hence constrained by it, in this analysis?
-
And what if that search led you to believe that Mormonism was rubbish? Would your church support that? That was the possibility I was referring to.
There is actually a process for members to have themselves removed from the records. So: yes.
-
Because the church was already going to be under mass persecution. Why add another dose on top?
Yeah, it would be a damned shame if god just had his people do what was right and accelerate the Civil Rights movement, etc.
-
There is actually a process for members to have themselves removed from the records. So: yes.
Is it similar to the process that your church uses to posthumously baptize dead people in the Mormon faith against theirs and their families wishes?
-
Are, btw, women allowed as priests yet?
Nope. But then, why must equality be about doing the same jobs? In my opinion, the ability to have the priesthood is somewhat of a consolation prize to the miracle of being able to create life. And my wife, mom, sisters, and MIL all tell me that they don't want the priesthood and the added responsibilities that would come with it.
-
That connects back to the other part of my original question, which I am actually curious about: how would the ccommunity react if this much lauded independent seeking of veracity would render such a conclusion?
-
One thing I will say about L Ron Hubbard is he led an interesting life.
-
From that point of view, we are an extraordinarily local phenomenon.
i meant metaphorically, not literally, but yeah. as far as we can see we are the only intelligence in the universe.
but that doesn't mean that we are the only one. space is big and it might be we're the only one we know of because all the other ones we could detect are too far away for us to detect.
or maybe they go out of their way to not talking to us
-
There is actually a process for members to have themselves removed from the records. So: yes.
Also, how are people who leave the LDS treated? Are they treated as though they may have been given the proper revelation from god? Or are they treated as...you know...shit?
-
or maybe they go out of their way to not talking to us
Given the state of the world, would you blame them?
-
-
Yeah, it would be a damned shame if god just had his people do what was right and accelerate the Civil Rights movement, etc.
Yeah, because a few thousand people could have pulled that kind of political influence before the Civil War as they moved from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois to Utah. Or during the Civil War from Utah. And a few hundred thousand Mormons scattered across the US before 1960, still viewed with veiled hostility, could have really jumpstarted the Civil Rights movement. Uh-huh.
-
Why? I think it is an excellent representation of the absurdity behind how belief in $DEITY is a belief with absolutely zero evidence and no way to disprove. It is a self-reinforcing fallacy.
If your understanding of religion is as deep as the modern atheist, yes, it's an awesome argument. It was the internet snarky meme of its day.
-
space is big and it might be we're the only one we know of because all the other ones we could detect are too far away for us to detect.
Or, their entire civilizations arose, then collapsed back into nothingness over a couple of billion years, before planet Earth had even got this whole multicellular party started.
Space is big, but time is also a factor in our apparent isolation.
-
See? Now you get it. Was that so hard? All chiropractors are charlatans.
Yes, preposterous and demonstrably false. I'm getting this now.
-
Yeah, because a few thousand people could have pulled that kind of political influence before the Civil War as they moved from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois to Utah. Or during the Civil War from Utah. And a few hundred thousand Mormons scattered across the US before 1960, still viewed with veiled hostility, could have really jumpstarted the Civil Rights movement. Uh-huh.
Well, god is all-powerful and etc.? Are you saying that he could not have made it happen? Here we are finding the logical fallacies that exist in all religions.
-
Nope. But then, why must equality be about doing the same jobs?
Because that is exactly what equality is about, people are based on their merits not arbitrary physical traits that aren't relevant to the task.
-
Given the state of the world, would you blame them?
given the state of my spellaring , would you blame them?
I wouldn't
