Reason to Believe

[InChrist]

You know, I was going to respond to this, but then I thought, "Why waste my time with somebody who so loudly professes her Christianity but can't manage to talk to her LDS brothers and sisters without saying something hateful? You obviously think I believe in some fake, wannabe, pretender, but I don't. We could talk back and forth forever, but you will never change how you feel and you will always feel compelled to try to denigrate my testimony. The way you look down on Mormons is hurtful and mean. I hope you get some benefit out of it.

I simply asked you a question(s), Katzpur. I do not hate or look down on you or Mormons and see no benefit at all in being hurtful or mean toward you. There is nothing hateful in asking legitimate doctrinal questions for clarification and understanding another person's perspective. Please point out where I expressed "hate" by anything I asked. I feel like you are using a dishonest Ad Hominem tactic to color my character as hateful in a manipulative attempt to undermine or dismiss my questions instead of simply answering. Why?

 

[Katzpur]

I simply asked you a question(s), Katzpur. I do not hate or look down on you or Mormons and see no benefit at all in being hurtful or mean toward you. There is nothing hateful in asking legitimate doctrinal questions for clarification and understanding another person's perspective. Please point out where I expressed "hate" by anything I asked. I feel like you are using a dishonest Ad Hominem tactic to color my character as hateful in a manipulative attempt to undermine or dismiss my questions instead of simply answering. Why?

I color your character as I see it, and I have excellent color perception. You're not "simply asking questions," and we both know that, so there's no point in your being deliberately obtuse. No further comment.

 

[InChrist]

I color your character as I see it, and I have excellent color perception. You're not "simply asking questions," and we both know that, so there's no point in your being deliberately obtuse. No further comment.

"In the ad personam fallacy the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is completely ignored, and the adversary's character or circumstances is subjected to personal attack..."
ad Hominem


You are the one who is implying that we believe in the same Jesus. As clarification, I asked you two questions related to nature of the Son of God / Person Jesus Christ. The first one contains what I believe the biblical scriptures reveal about Christ's eternal nature and the second contains information about His nature from The Doctrine and Covenants; one of the standard works of the LDS Church. How is this obtuse, much less hateful? I am not even implying your view is wrong or you believe in a fake Jesus because you have not even answered the questions yet. You don't have to comment or answer, but it appears you are evading, choosing instead to turn the discussion into a personal attack.

 

[Katzpur]

You are the one who is implying that we believe in the same Jesus.

Yes, I have clearly stated that we do. You have tried your darnedest to prove that we don't.

As clarification, I asked you two questions related to nature of the Son of God / Person Jesus Christ. The first one contains what I believe the biblical scriptures reveal about Christ's eternal nature and the second contains information about His nature from The Doctrine and Covenants; one of the standard works of the LDS Church.

I believe we are in agreement as to what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ. Our disagreements stem from non-biblical statements about Him. You believe what the 4th and 5th-century creeds say about Him and I believe what modern-day revelation says about Him.

You quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants and provided a specific citation (section 93, verses 12-14?). Perhaps you could do the same with what I apparently should be believing instead. How about you show me chapter and verse in the Bible where it says that Jesus Christ is the "unique, eternal only Son with no beginning, who has always existed one in substance and nature with the one and only eternal God the Father and the Holy Spirit." When you can do that, perhaps we can try again.

Honestly, I don't think we're ever going to agree to see eye-to-eye on what we believe, because we both are insistent upon using sources outside of the Bible to expound upon what the Bible actually says. My initial comment was that I believe in Jesus Christ, as He is actually spoken of in the Bible. I added nothing to what the Bible actually says. I went on to say that if you also believe what the Bible has to say about Him, then we have found some common ground. You, however, would prefer to focus on non-biblical sources (both yours and mine) and attempt to prove that we do not worship the same Savior after all. If you want to do that, you might start by explaining what makes your 4th and 5th century sources any better than my 19th century source.

How is this obtuse, much less hateful?

To me, that's obvious.

I am not even implying your view is wrong or you believe in a fake Jesus because you have not even answered the questions yet.

I have already told you what I believe about Jesus Christ, based on what the Bible tells us about Him. And you have already implied that I can't possibly be thinking of the same Jesus you're thinking of if our extra-biblical sources disagree as to what they have to say about Him. What more is there to say?

You don't have to comment or answer, but it appears you are evading, choosing instead to turn the discussion into a personal attack.

I'm choosing not to have a discussion with someone I believe -- based on past experience -- to be disingenuous.

 

[syo]

2. Believe that all religions are essentially correct

definitely. i am a christian orthodox polytheist who accepts all religions. there aren't bad religions. millions of people can't be wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

definitely. i am a christian orthodox polytheist who accepts all religions. there aren't bad religions. millions of people can't be wrong.

I agree with caveats. I do not believe that the religions as revealed by God to the the Prophet Founders are ever wrong. They are pristine at the time of revelation but after humans have been swimming around in the scriptures for a number of years they become like dirty water in a lake, even polluted. So the original message that God sought to convey gets changed. I believe that the dogmas and doctrines of the Church are are man-made and many are wrong, derived from misinterpretations of the scriptures, but that does not mean that the Gospels are wrong, quite the contrary.

I also believe religion has to change over time so that it is in accordance with the needs of the times we live in. Every age in history has its own problems and requires its own solutions vouchsafed onto it by God through a new Prophet.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

 

[Mock Turtle]

definitely. i am a christian orthodox polytheist who accepts all religions. there aren't bad religions. millions of people can't be wrong.

I think they can, and in many cases too - an aspect of fallacious reasoning:

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

"This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. In the argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author."

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree with caveats. I do not believe that the religions as revealed by God to the the Prophet Founders are ever wrong. They are pristine at the time of revelation but after humans have been swimming around in the scriptures for a number of years they become like dirty water in a lake, even polluted. So the original message that God sought to convey gets changed. ...

If your statement is true? Then I have to ask: Why do gods (or god) steadfastly refuse to speak to everyone, at a level wherein said person is willing (and able) to listen?

That is-- why do gods seem so insistent on using a Special Messenger (which automatically elevates this person well above the rest of humanity-- to the detriment of the rest, and the direct personal benefit of the "messenger").

That seems rather self-serving to me, and is patently not fair in the slightest.

Imagine a class where the teacher *only* teaches the class, using Sally. The class is never allowed to see the teacher, nor hear a direct reply. In fact, there is no evidence the class can speak to the teacher directly at all!

All the lessons come through Sally, who dispenses them as she sees fit (Sally is really no better than anyone else in the class-- she was selected at random, or perhaps because the teacher really liked the color of Sally's eyes...)

All communication goes back to the teacher through Sally as well-- and he class has no idea if Sally is honest in this activity or not.

Soon enough, Sally has a group of Favorites (Sally is only human, after all) to the detriment of the not-favorites.

And even worse? There are some in the class that Sally has come to despise-- they get treated horribly by the other class members, and in fact, some are so despondent, they end their lives.

But the teacher steadfastly refuses to intervene. Eventually, Sally grows old, and dies. But she has enjoyed such an elevated status? She had-selects from among her Special Favorites, her successor.

And here? It gets worse-- the successor has no clue how to actually get in touch with the teacher! That died with Sally, who guarded the ability with extreme jealousy. But the successor pretends she can..... and who can say otherwise?

 

[Milton Platt]

You ask questions that are impossible to answer. I know what I feel, and that's all anyone can know (with respect to spiritual knowledge, that is).

You are simply saying that you know that you have feelings. That is not the same as knowing what causes the feelings, which is the answer you ultimately need to address. We all have feelings of one sort or another.

 

[William Milverton]

.
.
If God exists he would have created humans for a purpose
and he would not be stupid enough to give them any choice
as to whether they conformed to that purpose


God the Father exists in eternity, outside of matter, energy, space and time
He also exists in your soul
You know him as your conscience
He is directly responsible for everything good and bad that happens to you


If you develop a relationship with your conscience
to the level that you follow its directions even if you don’t want to
Your life will start to go right
and you will be directed towards your life purpose


God in the form of Father, Son & Holy Ghost is love
He springs into existence when there is genuine love between two people
I am not saying God creates love. I am saying he is love, and is personally present as love
You will worship him in that form whether you want to or not


For a Love relationship to survive long term
the two people commit to that love – not to each other – to the love
For life. In that way they worship God, who is love


The Holy Ghost is your environment, You live within him
He/She is the living video game that you call life
Those who view their environment as having life and personality
naturally, immediately and automatically live at a higher level of existence


So whether you believe in God or not doesn’t matter
Whether you choose a religion and conform to it or not is only relevant to spiritual quality and standing
You exist within God, he dominates your life, he organises the events of your life
and stage-manages every aspect of your existence
.
.

 

[Katzpur]

You are simply saying that you know that you have feelings. That is not the same as knowing what causes the feelings, which is the answer you ultimately need to address. We all have feelings of one sort or another.

I really don't need to address anything. I'm not the one with questions. I'm totally comfortable in my relationship with God and with Jesus Christ. If somebody questions that relationship, I'm not going to feel backed into a corner just because I can't give them an answer they'll find satisfactory.

 

[syo]

I think they can, and in many cases too - an aspect of fallacious reasoning:

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

"This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. In the argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author."

well, that is true.

 

[Mock Turtle]

.
.
If God exists he would have created humans for a purpose

For those with certainty as to their belief, it must be comforting to behave so as to conform to some espoused doctrine, but for many of us without any such beliefs, we seem to manage OK too. The decision-making comes with that very first sentence IF God exists, since if this is not the case then those who believe are just as much in error as we non-believers apparently are. And no, I don't do Pascal's Wager - that hardly makes any sense either - to me.

 

[Milton Platt]

I really don't need to address anything. I'm not the one with questions. I'm totally comfortable in my relationship with God and with Jesus Christ. If somebody questions that relationship, I'm not going to feel backed into a corner just because I can't give them an answer they'll find satisfactory.

I said you need to address the question, not that you have to address it. You are free to think whatever you wish Your thoughts affect no one, only your actions. However, when you post your thoughts on a public forum, they may be questioned.

 

[Katzpur]

I said you need to address the question, not that you have to address it. You are free to think whatever you wish Your thoughts affect no one, only your actions. However, when you post your thoughts on a public forum, they may be questioned.

Of course they may, but the question that was posed to me was, "The hundred-dollar question is how you have that relationship with Jesus? How do you know it is Jesus you are relating to?" How on earth can someone be expected to answer a question like that?

 

[Milton Platt]

Of course they may, but the question that was posed to me was, "The hundred-dollar question is how you have that relationship with Jesus? How do you know it is Jesus you are relating to?" How on earth can someone be expected to answer a question like that?

I would suppose by providing the evidence that will demonstrate that you know you have a relationship, rather than simply believe you have one. When one says they know something, it implies that they have knowledge which can be demonstrated to lead to having said conclusion. Maybe you only believe you have a relationship, and are not saying you know you do, which is fine. But there is a distinction. If you are saying you can’t know, then I’m good with that.

 

[Katzpur]

I would suppose by providing the evidence that will demonstrate that you know you have a relationship, rather than simply believe you have one. When one says they know something, it implies that they have knowledge which can be demonstrated to lead to having said conclusion. Maybe you only believe you have a relationship, and are not saying you know you do, which is fine. But there is a distinction. If you are saying you can’t know, then I’m good with that.

Okay, I can't know; I just strongly believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

..
If God exists he would have created humans for a purpose
and he would not be stupid enough to give them any choice
as to whether they conformed to that purpose

Whether you choose a religion and conform to it or not is only relevant to spiritual quality and standing
You exist within God, he dominates your life, he organises the events of your life
and stage-manages every aspect of your existence..

Are you saying that humans do not have the free will to make their own choices?
If it is true that God dominates everyone's lives, that means that God wants some people to be atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

If your statement is true? Then I have to ask: Why do gods (or god) steadfastly refuse to speak to everyone, at a level wherein said person is willing (and able) to listen?

That is-- why do gods seem so insistent on using a Special Messenger (which automatically elevates this person well above the rest of humanity-- to the detriment of the rest, and the direct personal benefit of the "messenger").

Special Messengers are used because you could never understand God’s communication, since you are not specially equipped to receive it. As I just wrote to another nonbeliever:

“A Messenger of God is a subtle, mysterious and ethereal Being that has been assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. His body is human but His Soul was not conceived at conception like ours, but was rather preexistent. In that preexistence His Soul was given the capacity to receive direct revelations from God. Although the Messenger had to translate that Revelation into a form we could understand, His Words are endowed with an invisible spiritual force.”

There is no personal benefit to the Messenger, quite the contrary. All these Messengers have suffered and sacrificed their entire lives for the sake of God and humanity. They get nothing for themselves. What they do they do for God.

That seems rather self-serving to me, and is patently not fair in the slightest.

Imagine a class where the teacher *only* teaches the class, using Sally. The class is never allowed to see the teacher, nor hear a direct reply. In fact, there is no evidence the class can speak to the teacher directly at all!

All the lessons come through Sally, who dispenses them as she sees fit (Sally is really no better than anyone else in the class-- she was selected at random, or perhaps because the teacher really liked the color of Sally's eyes...)

All communication goes back to the teacher through Sally as well-- and he class has no idea if Sally is honest in this activity or not.

Soon enough, Sally has a group of Favorites (Sally is only human, after all) to the detriment of the not-favorites.

And even worse? There are some in the class that Sally has come to despise-- they get treated horribly by the other class members, and in fact, some are so despondent, they end their lives.

You cannot use human analogies to make comparisons. The salient point is that these Messengers are not just humans like Sally is just another classmate. They are in between a human and God in the sense that they have qualities of both humans and qualities of God. As such, they are specially equipped to act as Mediators between God and man.

But the teacher steadfastly refuses to intervene. Eventually, Sally grows old, and dies. But she has enjoyed such an elevated status? She had-selects from among her Special Favorites, her successor.

And here? It gets worse-- the successor has no clue how to actually get in touch with the teacher! That died with Sally, who guarded the ability with extreme jealousy. But the successor pretends she can..... and who can say otherwise?

God does not have to intervene once God sends a Messenger because that Messenger was preselected and is specially qualified to do the job of receiving and delivering God’s message. Once He gets the message He is off and running.

God intervenes again by sending a new Messenger when a new message is necessary at a future time in history. The new Messenger knows everything that happened with all the previous Messengers because He has the knowledge of God revealed to Him and because He is the same Spirit of God in the flesh, so He has the memories of having been the previous Messenger.

God is God after all so God has all His bases covered.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Special Messengers are used because you could never understand God’s communication, since you are not specially equipped to receive it. As I just wrote to another nonbeliever:

Seriously? Your god is so powerless, that it cannot manage this simple feat?

LMAO! That is the funniest sh--- I've read in nearly two decades of on-line conversation.

You crack me up-- I literally laughed out loud, here.

And if you were serious? Oh. My. Laughing harder: Talk about Ivory Tower, or hoisting one's self up on a an imaginary pedestal.

Thanks for the laughs!