Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Surgenator]

That doesn't change the fact that God is subjective.

For me, I happen to believe the eye witness accounts of prophets who over the millennia have reported the same story and have consistently and coherently recorded it in scripture. So, there is no doubt but that you will consider God to be subjective; But, since I believe these reports of the prophets to be true, then for me God is an objective truth.

"Consistently and coherently"? The bible scholars would disagree with you. Nevertheless, you haven't understood what I was saying. Lets me put it this way, would objective moral laws exist if God didn't exist? If YES, God is unnecessarily for us to be moral. If NO, then God dictates what is moral. If any being (God included) dictates what is moral, morality is subjective. You do not get to objective morality by looking at how the most powerful being behaves.

[ether-ore]

For me, I happen to believe the eye witness accounts of prophets who over the millennia have reported the same story and have consistently and coherently recorded it in scripture. So, there is no doubt but that you will consider God to be subjective; But, since I believe these reports of the prophets to be true, then for me God is an objective truth.

"Consistently and coherently"? The bible scholars would disagree with you. Nevertheless, you haven't understood what I was saying. Lets me put it this way, would objective moral laws exist if God didn't exist? If YES, God is unnecessarily for us to be moral. If NO, then God dictates what is moral. If any being (God included) dictates what is moral, morality is subjective. You do not get to objective morality by looking at how the most powerful being behaves.

I'm not sure which Bible scholars you're referring to. The scholars within my faith do agree with me, or rather I should say, I agree with them.

I fear you are making an error in assuming you know what I believe concerning God and the objective moral law. For LDS, we do not believe our God either created or originated the moral law. The moral law has always existed from all eternity and our Heavenly Father abides it as well as all who are His (meaning us, His children). The law is objective because it applies at ALL times (eternity) and for ALL beings wherever in the universe they may be and it is not subject to change or alteration by any being.

From here it gets more complicated, you see, we are answerable to our Heavenly Father just as I am answerable to my father and you to yours. We both have fathers, but they are not the same father. So it is with our Heavenly Father. There are others, but ours is the only one to whom we are answerable, and He administers the eternally objective law as far as we are concerned.

[DeadChannel]

Do you believe the eye witness accounts of Vespasian curing the blind with spit? Eye witness accounts of Apolloius of Tyanna doing all sorts of Jesusy escapades? Mohamed's eyewitness testimony of cave-time with an Angel? The angry, mono-theistic god of Islam is consistent with the polytheism of Christianity and Mormonism?

What same story? What consistency and coherency?

Why do you accept these "reports" of the prophets as true, when many were written post-hoc? Daniel for example...

It is after all a choice isn't it? Each individual has to make this decision for himself.

But, to answer you question:

The story is that Jesus Christ suffered, died, was buried and rose again the third day. All of the Old Testament prophets testified of the mission of Jesus Christ. All of the prophets witnessed, reported and prophesied of how God deals with His children's wickedness, their righteousness and gave them guidance on how they could be saved if they would but repent. I find all of the information in the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price to be consistent with each other in terms of the plan of salvation. All of these records from the time of Moses (who recorded events prior to his time) up until the present testify of the same thing... that Jesus is the Christ. I, myself find these records to be consistent and coherent.

The other accounts you mentioned do not carry the same weight for me. Those reports are not corroborated by other records and neither do they cover a similar amount of time with the same degree of consistency.

I've no doubt that my answer will not satisfy, but I'm really not trying to convince or convert anyone here. I'm just here to express an opinion. Never at any time did I expect my opinion to be accepted.

I was just responding to an original post and then tried to answer follow-up questions to the best of my ability.

Can you give us examples of evidence that the bible has behind it that any other holy book lacks? Oh, and evidence found inside the text it's supposed to support doesn't count.

[ether-ore]

It is after all a choice isn't it? Each individual has to make this decision for himself.

But, to answer you question:

The story is that Jesus Christ suffered, died, was buried and rose again the third day. All of the Old Testament prophets testified of the mission of Jesus Christ. All of the prophets witnessed, reported and prophesied of how God deals with His children's wickedness, their righteousness and gave them guidance on how they could be saved if they would but repent. I find all of the information in the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price to be consistent with each other in terms of the plan of salvation. All of these records from the time of Moses (who recorded events prior to his time) up until the present testify of the same thing... that Jesus is the Christ. I, myself find these records to be consistent and coherent.

The other accounts you mentioned do not carry the same weight for me. Those reports are not corroborated by other records and neither do they cover a similar amount of time with the same degree of consistency.

I've no doubt that my answer will not satisfy, but I'm really not trying to convince or convert anyone here. I'm just here to express an opinion. Never at any time did I expect my opinion to be accepted.

I was just responding to an original post and then tried to answer follow-up questions to the best of my ability.

Can you give us examples of evidence that the bible has behind it that any other holy book lacks? Oh, and evidence found inside the text it's supposed to support doesn't count.

As I said, I do not believe I can provide any answer that will satisfy. All I can do is relate what the collective scriptures tell me, and that is that I believe we are all eternal beings who are currently in one stage of progression from one state to another. From an eternal perspective, we are in the third stage of our progression and what we do in this life; the choices we make, will affect where we go after mortality is over. So, what I get from the scriptures I accept and believe in is an eternal perspective. That this life is not the be all, end all of our existence.

[Surgenator]

"Consistently and coherently"? The bible scholars would disagree with you. Nevertheless, you haven't understood what I was saying. Lets me put it this way, would objective moral laws exist if God didn't exist? If YES, God is unnecessarily for us to be moral. If NO, then God dictates what is moral. If any being (God included) dictates what is moral, morality is subjective. You do not get to objective morality by looking at how the most powerful being behaves.

I'm not sure which Bible scholars you're referring to. The scholars within my faith do agree with me, or rather I should say, I agree with them.

Many scholars exist, who are not part of your faith, would disagree with you. How do you know who's right?

I fear you are making an error in assuming you know what I believe concerning God and the objective moral law. For LDS, we do not believe our God either created or originated the moral law. The moral law has always existed from all eternity and our Heavenly Father abides it as well as all who are His (meaning us, His children). The law is objective because it applies at ALL times (eternity) and for ALL beings wherever in the universe they may be and it is not subject to change or alteration by any being.

If objective morals exist independent of God, we do not have to appeal to God to be moral. It also means that God has the capacity of being amoral, and God has/is doing some very immoral actions. For example: vicarious redemption, infinite punishment for finite crime, punishment for not believing, etc...

From here it gets more complicated, you see, we are answerable to our Heavenly Father just as I am answerable to my father and you to yours. We both have fathers, but they are not the same father. So it is with our Heavenly Father. There are others, but ours is the only one to whom we are answerable, and He administers the eternally objective law as far as we are concerned.

How would you know if God administered the moral law correctly? Faith isn't enough.

[DeadChannel]

Can you give us examples of evidence that the bible has behind it that any other holy book lacks? Oh, and evidence found inside the text it's supposed to support doesn't count.

As I said, I do not believe I can provide any answer that will satisfy. All I can do is relate what the collective scriptures tell me, and that is that I believe we are all eternal beings who are currently in one stage of progression from one state to another. From an eternal perspective, we are in the third stage of our progression and what we do in this life; the choices we make, will affect where we go after mortality is over. So, what I get from the scriptures I accept and believe in is an eternal perspective. That this life is not the be all, end all of our existence.

Look, my question wasn't some really abstract thing. Give me a straight answer as to why you find the 'evidence' for Christianity more convincing than that of any other religion. I'm not asking you to justify your belief, although you should. I'm simply asking you to justify an assertion you made.

[wiploc]

No, its morality derived from non-religious sources.

How can you say it's superior if you can't specifically define it?

We could say that on most any other subject, so why can't we say it about morality?

Suppose you like the looks of a hat, and you want to know if it fits your head. You send two friends to check, and, when they come back, one says it will fit you, and the other says it wont.

One of your friends says she used the secular science of measurement to determine whether it will fit. Your other friend says he fasted and prayed, and learned the answer in a vision.

Magic, or secularism? Which one sounds more reliable?

[ether-ore]

Many scholars exist, who are not part of your faith, would disagree with you. How do you know who's right?

This is a determination each individual has to make for themselves. If you are indeed searching, may I suggest you look for one that has an eternal perspective.

If objective morals exist independent of God, we do not have to appeal to God to be moral. It also means that God has the capacity of being amoral, and God has/is doing some very immoral actions. For example: vicarious redemption, infinite punishment for finite crime, punishment for not believing, etc...

I think on the contrary, we do have to depend on God since He is our Heavenly Father as well as the administrator of the law. What you have said is akin to saying that you do not have to answer to a judge if you broke the law. God because of His nature, does not have the capacity to be immoral.... it is just not in His nature. If He were to do something immoral, He would cease to be God and all of His creations would collapse into chaos.

By what standard are you saying vicarious redemption is immoral? I hope you will not claim that such a standard is objective and universal, because I suggest to you that it is not. I am suggesting that according to God's law it is not immoral. Christ did indeed voluntarily suffer and give His life for us, but He is resurrected, and He lives.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime is not something LDS believe in. As I said in another post elsewhere, Christ said that those who do not repent must suffer even as He has suffered. This, I don't believe has reference to the cross. Rather, it has reference to what took place in the Garden of Gethsemane. What I believe took place there was Christ making the transition from being mortal to being immortal. He bled from every pore. He was shedding His blood in an extremely painful process.

Immortal beings do not have blood in their veins. What is there, I do not know, but when the Roman soldier pierced Christ's side with a spear, a clear fluid is reported as having come out.

Christ did not die from being on the cross. Being immortal, He could have hung there indefinitely. He remained and suffered to finish His mission for us and once done, He gave up His life by His own will, and three days later, by the power of His spirit, He took it up again.

The point being that unless we repent, we will have to endure that painful transition from mortality to immortality without the help of God. If we had repented, then Christ's sacrifice will have changed us "in the twinkling of an eye", and we will not have to endure that. However, after that penalty has been paid, we go on to a reward commensurate to our behaviors during mortality where we will find such peace and happiness as our actions suggested we desired.

How would you know if God administered the moral law correctly? Faith isn't enough.

God does not render judgment until after our mortal test is complete. "Judgment Day" is yet future and then God will render His verdicts according to the eternal moral law as it applies to each individual according as their works have been.

---

As I said, I do not believe I can provide any answer that will satisfy. All I can do is relate what the collective scriptures tell me, and that is that I believe we are all eternal beings who are currently in one stage of progression from one state to another. From an eternal perspective, we are in the third stage of our progression and what we do in this life; the choices we make, will affect where we go after mortality is over. So, what I get from the scriptures I accept and believe in is an eternal perspective. That this life is not the be all, end all of our existence.

Look, my question wasn't some really abstract thing. Give me a straight answer as to why you find the 'evidence' for Christianity more convincing than that of any other religion. I'm not asking you to justify your belief, although you should. I'm simply asking you to justify an assertion you made.

I would hope that you would understand that this is a personal determination. I have in so many words given you my reasons for choosing to be LDS before. But anyway... having decided that it is more probable that God exists than not based on the evidence of prophetic testimony recorded over millennia coupled with the added confirmation of modern scripture, and reasoning that an eternal perspective makes the most sense;

I have determined that Christianity (specifically the LDS variety) was more reasonable that all others I looked into (including non-Christian faiths). I do not see science as an enemy to religion. I do however, not believe in evolution or the big bang. I do believe in the laws of thermodynamics as they apply to the state of existence we are in. I believe that matter, energy, spirit, life, law and God (as a title and not as a specific individual) has always existed.

My belief system gives me an understanding of who I am, where I came from, why I'm here in mortality and what will happen to me after this life is over. I can believe in free agency because my belief system tells me I am eternal being and I have always had agency. I, my essence, was not created by God, but He is, through His loving kindness, helping me to progress. The world and my existence makes sense to me. I see my Father in Heaven as a benefactor and I am grateful for His gifts and His mercy towards me.

I do not see other faiths offering me the same reasonableness or depth of understanding from an eternal perspective.

I hope that answers your question.

[Surgenator]

Many scholars exist, who are not part of your faith, would disagree with you. How do you know who's right?

This is a determination each individual has to make for themselves. If you are indeed searching, may I suggest you look for one that has an eternal perspective.

And how am I suppose to know who has an eternal perspective? More importantly, how do I know the eternal perspective is the correct perspective?

If objective morals exist independent of God, we do not have to appeal to God to be moral. It also means that God has the capacity of being amoral, and God has/is doing some very immoral actions. For example: vicarious redemption, infinite punishment for finite crime, punishment for not believing, etc...

I think on the contrary, we do have to depend on God since He is our Heavenly Father as well as the administrator of the law. What you have said is akin to saying that you do not have to answer to a judge if you broke the law. God because of His nature, does not have the capacity to be immoral.... it is just not in His nature. If He were to do something immoral, He would cease to be God and all of His creations would collapse into chaos.

I really despise the "not in his nature" defense. It at no point addresses how one objectively determines god's nature. Quoting a book he supposedly authored is not objective. Asking him directly is also not objective. Also, the defense does not prevent god from being out of his nature for a brief moment.

Since I don't believe God exist, the whole "administrator of the law" and "answer to a judge" are meaningless statements. They are more of a distraction from the primary discussion.

By what standard are you saying vicarious redemption is immoral? I hope you will not claim that such a standard is objective and universal, because I suggest to you that it is not. I am suggesting that according to God's law it is not immoral. Christ did indeed voluntarily suffer and give His life for us, but He is resurrected, and He lives.

The standard is very simple and originates as the consequence of our freewill. The standard: a person must bear the responsibility of their actions. The only valid excuse is if the person in question cannot reasonably comprehend the consequences of their actions e.g. child or mentally ill. Vicarious redemption states that someone else can take the responsibility without justification. It would encourage immoral actions since the consequences could be given to someone else.

Just imagine a parent gets a spurt of road rage because someone cut him off. The parent punches his child. Vicarious redemption states that is perfectly fine especially if the child gave permission to his parent to hurt him instead of the driver that cut him off. And it wouldn't make it any less immoral if the driver who cut them off asked the child to take the punch for him.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime is not something LDS believe in. As I said in another post elsewhere, Christ said that those who do not repent must suffer even as He has suffered. This, I don't believe has reference to the cross. Rather, it has reference to what took place in the Garden of Gethsemane. What I believe took place there was Christ making the transition from being mortal to being immortal. He bled from every pore. He was shedding His blood in an extremely painful process.

I'm not too familiar with all the stuff Mormons believe. Does mormonism have an eternal hell where sinners will burn forever and ever?

Immortal beings do not have blood in their veins. What is there, I do not know, but when the Roman soldier pierced Christ's side with a spear, a clear fluid is reported as having come out.

There is oxymoron. Immortal being that dies. Plus, this is unfounded claim.

The point being that unless we repent, we will have to endure that painful transition from mortality to immortality without the help of God. If we had repented, then Christ's sacrifice will have changed us "in the twinkling of an eye", and we will not have to endure that. However, after that penalty has been paid, we go on to a reward commensurate to our behaviors during mortality where we will find such peace and happiness as our actions suggested we desired.

Here is another annoying thing. Why would you repent to the judge? You repent to the person you wronged not some third party. That would be the moral thing to do.

How would you know if God administered the moral law correctly? Faith isn't enough.

God does not render judgment until after our mortal test is complete. "Judgment Day" is yet future and then God will render His verdicts according to the eternal moral law as it applies to each individual according as their works have been.

That doesn't answer the question. How would you know if God administered the moral law correctly?

[robvalue]

It sounds to me ether as if you're saying you have chosen to believe in Christianity (and chosen a particular denomination). The thing is, belief isn't a choice, it's a state of mind. I could not choose to believe the bible is true, even if I wanted to. I could tell people that I believe it, but I would not actually believe it. So if someone truly believes something, they have a reason for believing it. It may be a rational reason, it may be an emotional reason. The person may not even consciously be aware of the reason.

I think you got me mixed up with someone else, but I'll put my points again briefly. If God chooses what morality is, then it's subjective. It depends on God. If it was objective, it would be independent of everything, including God. It would apply to God, and he could not change it.

And if we as humans follow a written code without question, we are not moral, we are amoral. But I'm sure you, like every christian, finds reasons to ignore parts of the bible that you don't agree with. I imagine you would say slavery is wrong, and stoning unruly children to death is wrong. By saying this, you have executed a moral judgement, demonstrating morals don't come from an external source. You just pick out those that happen to match up with yours, in other words you just use yours. In fact it's worse than that, because you may be pressured into following a bad moral instruction in the bible which is contrary to your morality. So your morality is worse off for having come into contact with religion. What you have is therefor a tainted and inflexible version of secular morality

---

No need to apologize for time taken though Hope your dialysis went well.