Symbolic meaning sufficient

[_moksha]

This was part of a post I wrote back in 2004. Please disregard if you are a diehard atheist, as these thoughts are irrelevant to you. It was addressed to believers.

I am going to make an assumption here and guess that you would not press the claim that the Bible is literally true in all parts. Did the authors of the allegorical Bible stories do harm when they told them without explicitly stating that they made them up, or was there something to be gained from their existence? I think a case could be made both ways.

What if Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon? Could it have met the symbolic needs of the time to reconcile the meeting of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the existence of American Indians? And what about the LDS Church that sprung from this? Couldn't God's love be big enough to cover this Church as well? Of course it could. Wasn't it already given to cover the allegorical parts of the Bible and the religions that sprung from them?

Unless of course your thinking marginalizes the grandeur and immensity of the inclusiveness of this love, forgiveness and mercy.

Anyway, that is just some of my thinking on this matter. We agree that faith is the key. I can believe one thing, you can believe another... It is only when we start thinking thinking that one faith Trump's another because we mistake the secondary existence of "tangibles" as proof do we become dishonest.

So you think ".... it is bad theology, and it is untrue". Everybody has their own opinion. But you are rearing that ugly phantom of "truth" like it really means something other than faith. Why not throw in a little Christian kindness and simply say, "it is not my theology or faith"?

[_JAK]

This was part of a post I wrote back in 2004. Please disregard if you are a diehard atheist, as these thoughts are irrelevant to you. It was addressed to believers.

I am going to make an assumption here and guess that you would not press the claim that the Bible is literally true in all parts. Did the authors of the allegorical Bible stories do harm when they told them without explicitly stating that they made them up, or was there something to be gained from their existence? I think a case could be made both ways.

What if Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon? Could it have met the symbolic needs of the time to reconcile the meeting of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the existence of American Indians? And what about the LDS Church that sprung from this? Couldn't God's love be big enough to cover this Church as well? Of course it could. Wasn't it already given to cover the allegorical parts of the Bible and the religions that sprung from them?

Unless of course your thinking marginalizes the grandeur and immensity of the inclusiveness of this love, forgiveness and mercy.

Anyway, that is just some of my thinking on this matter. We agree that faith is the key. I can believe one thing, you can believe another... It is only when we start thinking thinking that one faith Trump's another because we mistake the secondary existence of "tangibles" as proof do we become dishonest.

So you think ".... it is bad theology, and it is untrue". Everybody has their own opinion. But you are rearing that ugly phantom of "truth" like it really means something other than faith. Why not throw in a little Christian kindness and simply say, "it is not my theology or faith"?

Your last question is the leading one, moksha.

Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.

JAK

[_Blixa]

Sorry Moksha, I peeked!

I don't have a problem with the angle you're following (heh...I first mistyped it as "angel"!). In fact, I appreciate the sentiments and think they have a better internal logic than much found in "apologetics," as well as having much more generous and humane consequences if followed through on. I can think of a number of reasons why some/many Mormons wouldn't be moved by your thoughts, though, and more's the pity.

[_moksha]

Thanks Blixa. Maybe some LDS posters could weigh in on this as well.

.

Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.

JAK

One religion does not have to Trump another. Can they not mutually coexist and perhaps even tell each other that, "You're okay and I'm okay"?

[_JAK]

Thanks Blixa. Maybe some LDS posters could weigh in on this as well.

.

Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.

JAK

One religion does not have to Trump another. Can they not mutually coexist and perhaps even tell each other that, "You're okay and I'm okay"?

Clearly, Christian denominations, sects, and cults function within the same time period. They tend to be exclusive, and they are in competition for members, wealth, and influence.

Christianity is one religion. The fact that there are hundreds of different Christian groups is evidence that it is a highly fractured religion. As a result, they also tend to be incompatible.

Evangelical Baptist fundamentalists have little respect for the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope.

They “coexist” but they have little to do with one another. And when push comes to shove, they lack much compatibility or tolerance.

These are examples. We could cite many other Christian organizations which are not compatible. The Amish would not be compatible with the Mormons (another example). Mennonites would not be compatible with Episcopalians (another example).

The invention of the printing press and the increasing ability to read has contributed significantly to the many divisions which have followed the 1517 beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

At present, many if not most of the Christian groups would not really accept the I’m O.K., you’re O.K.. If such were the case, we would not have the many group organizations. People with different beliefs may be civil, but beneath the surface, much difference is not O.K.

Occasionally two groups join such as the now United Methodist Church. But more frequently since the 1500s, splits, start-ups, and reforms of some previous Christian group have been the case.

People with different beliefs can “get along” so long as they don’t get specific about their religious views in social interaction. Generally, politicians use religion, but they often don’t want to get too specific about their religious views or their religious history lest they alienate potential voters. There are exceptions of course.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

Your last question is the leading one, moksha.

Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.

JAK

Since any rational person who claims that all his beliefs are absolute truth would have to believe that they have all knowledge we can assume that JAK is either irrational or claims godhood.

JAK, will you please substantiate this god-claim. Thus far you have provided no evidence for the proposition "god".

Also, can I be High Priest of the Church of JAK?

[_JAK]

Your last question is the leading one, moksha.

Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.

JAK

Since any rational person who claims that all his beliefs are absolute truth would have to believe that they have all knowledge we can assume that JAK is either irrational or claims godhood.

JAK, will you please substantiate this god-claim. Thus far you have provided no evidence for the proposition "god".

Also, can I be High Priest of the Church of JAK?

Nehor,

First, my compliments for your accurate quotation of my remarks. Second, I appreciate your response and will address it.

In my statement to moksha, the point was with regard to religion. If religion proponents merely said: We believe that such and such… it would be expressed as an opinion. Such an expression would make room for differing opinions.

However, religion(s) has historically insisted that it does not merely represent a point of view but rather that it is an assertion of truth.

That’s the basis for the comment that: “Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.”

I’m addressing this point from an historical perspective, not from a personal one. Religion (any religious perspective) is weakened if it is laid back and philosophical about its own validity. Since that is the case, religion necessarily is pontificating in its interpretations and dogmas.

While most denominations of Christianity today don’t openly state: Our “beliefs are absolute truth,” (as you stated) they tend to imply that in their statements of dogma and doctrine.

How often do we hear a claim: God says that…? We hear it often. We also hear from various Christians: The Bible says that…. And when they say that, they imply that their interpretation is the correct one and the only correct one. If one disagrees openly, such Christians often become irritated if not angry.

Again, as you re-read my statement, that is the impact of it. It’s an analysis of the absolute position taken by many religions groups.

To your comment, frequently believers do not say: “…all his beliefs are absolute truth…” However, they clearly believe that most (if not all) are correct. You will notice that I did not use “absolute truth” in my comment which you quoted correctly. That phrase is your phrase.

In addition, you will notice that the term “God” was never used in the quotation you correctly stated from me. I made no God claim. Hence your second paragraph is a straw man attack. That is, you are constructing an argument which I never made. Read again carefully the very quotation you made from me.

Now, if your intent was to be sarcastic, you don’t offer clue to that. If that was your intent (sarcasm), you did not address my response to moksha which was intended as serious rejoinder.

My analysis was of how religion and religious dogma functions and how it perceives itself. It’s authoritarian. It’s certain in its pronouncements. It’s not open to varying points of view as a smaller part of philosophy.

Again, I’ll end with compliment to you for an accurate quotation from me (if not an accurate understanding of it).

JAK

[_The Nehor]

Your last question is the leading one, moksha.

Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.

JAK

Since any rational person who claims that all his beliefs are absolute truth would have to believe that they have all knowledge we can assume that JAK is either irrational or claims godhood.

JAK, will you please substantiate this god-claim. Thus far you have provided no evidence for the proposition "god".

Also, can I be High Priest of the Church of JAK?

Nehor,

First, my compliments for your accurate quotation of my remarks. Second, I appreciate your response and will address it.

In my statement to moksha, the point was with regard to religion. If religion proponents merely said: We believe that such and such… it would be expressed as an opinion. Such an expression would make room for differing opinions.

However, religion(s) has historically insisted that it does not merely represent a point of view but rather that it is an assertion of truth.

That’s the basis for the comment that: “Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.”

I’m addressing this point from an historical perspective, not from a personal one. Religion (any religious perspective) is weakened if it is laid back and philosophical about its own validity. Since that is the case, religion necessarily is pontificating in its interpretations and dogmas.

While most denominations of Christianity today don’t openly state: Our “beliefs are absolute truth,” (as you stated) they tend to imply that in their statements of dogma and doctrine.

How often do we hear a claim: God says that…? We hear it often. We also hear from various Christians: The Bible says that…. And when they say that, they imply that their interpretation is the correct one and the only correct one. If one disagrees openly, such Christians often become irritated if not angry.

Again, as you re-read my statement, that is the impact of it. It’s an analysis of the absolute position taken by many religions groups.

To your comment, frequently believers do not say: “…all his beliefs are absolute truth…” However, they clearly believe that most (if not all) are correct. You will notice that I did not use “absolute truth” in my comment which you quoted correctly. That phrase is your phrase.

In addition, you will notice that the term “God” was never used in the quotation you correctly stated from me. I made no God claim. Hence your second paragraph is a straw man attack. That is, you are constructing an argument which I never made. Read again carefully the very quotation you made from me.

Now, if your intent was to be sarcastic, you don’t offer clue to that. If that was your intent (sarcasm), you did not address my response to moksha which was intended as serious rejoinder.

My analysis was of how religion and religious dogma functions and how it perceives itself. It’s authoritarian. It’s certain in its pronouncements. It’s not open to varying points of view as a smaller part of philosophy.

Again, I’ll end with compliment to you for an accurate quotation from me (if not an accurate understanding of it).

JAK

JAK, don't you think my third sentence said I was being sarcastic?

[_JAK]

Your last question is the leading one, moksha.

Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.

JAK

Since any rational person who claims that all his beliefs are absolute truth would have to believe that they have all knowledge we can assume that JAK is either irrational or claims godhood.

JAK, will you please substantiate this god-claim. Thus far you have provided no evidence for the proposition "god".

Also, can I be High Priest of the Church of JAK?

Nehor,

First, my compliments for your accurate quotation of my remarks. Second, I appreciate your response and will address it.

In my statement to moksha, the point was with regard to religion. If religion proponents merely said: We believe that such and such… it would be expressed as an opinion. Such an expression would make room for differing opinions.

However, religion(s) has historically insisted that it does not merely represent a point of view but rather that it is an assertion of truth.

That’s the basis for the comment that: “Religion is nothing without the implicit claim that my faith is superior to your faith. Even more, your beliefs (in as much as they disagree with mine) are false. Mine are true.”

I’m addressing this point from an historical perspective, not from a personal one. Religion (any religious perspective) is weakened if it is laid back and philosophical about its own validity. Since that is the case, religion necessarily is pontificating in its interpretations and dogmas.

While most denominations of Christianity today don’t openly state: Our “beliefs are absolute truth,” (as you stated) they tend to imply that in their statements of dogma and doctrine.

How often do we hear a claim: God says that…? We hear it often. We also hear from various Christians: The Bible says that…. And when they say that, they imply that their interpretation is the correct one and the only correct one. If one disagrees openly, such Christians often become irritated if not angry.

Again, as you re-read my statement, that is the impact of it. It’s an analysis of the absolute position taken by many religions groups.

To your comment, frequently believers do not say: “…all his beliefs are absolute truth…” However, they clearly believe that most (if not all) are correct. You will notice that I did not use “absolute truth” in my comment which you quoted correctly. That phrase is your phrase.

In addition, you will notice that the term “God” was never used in the quotation you correctly stated from me. I made no God claim. Hence your second paragraph is a straw man attack. That is, you are constructing an argument which I never made. Read again carefully the very quotation you made from me.

Now, if your intent was to be sarcastic, you don’t offer clue to that. If that was your intent (sarcasm), you did not address my response to moksha which was intended as serious rejoinder.

My analysis was of how religion and religious dogma functions and how it perceives itself. It’s authoritarian. It’s certain in its pronouncements. It’s not open to varying points of view as a smaller part of philosophy.

Again, I’ll end with compliment to you for an accurate quotation from me (if not an accurate understanding of it).

JAK

JAK, don't you think my third sentence said I was being sarcastic?

What’s the difference between your second sentence and your third sentence?

Are both “sarcastic”? If your second sentence was serious, I responded seriously.

What about your first sentence? Was that serious? If so, I responded to it seriously.

JAK

[_Gazelam]

Why did Christ have contempt for the High Priest if any belief was fine? Did not the High Priest have faith in the same God Christ did?

Why were men called to positions of authority? Why did some have to be rebaptised and then given the gift of the Holy Ghost by a man with authority? Why did the possesed man attack the false priests who sought to expell the demon in the name of Christ?