Religion is Obsolete

[_keene]

To me, Christ's fulfilling of the law did not put an end to all laws, it merely subsummed the lower law that governed from the time of Moses, under the new and higher law presented by Christ. If interested, I explain this in more detail in an online article titled Covenants and Associated Testators, Promises, Laws, Rituals, and Tokens. The article was written in conjunction with and article on "works and Salvation", but I think it also has application to the issue you raise.

I did skim your article, but did not take the time to read it fully, so if some of my responses are answered in that article, please let me know, and if possible quote the relevant information. I simply don't have the time to spend going through it all.

What my major concern with this particular belief (that lower laws were subsummed) is how do we know which laws are kept, and which are replaced by "higher" law? Other than the obvious (STONE THEM!! being replaced by LOVE THEM!!!), which laws are still required and which aren't? And under what authority do we know this?

It seems more logical, at least to myself, that all of the laws should be replaced with a higher concept; that of Love. This will allow us to think about each action on it's own merit, thereby weeding out the uneccessary laws (such as No using magical healing on sundays, or No U turn at 3am with no traffic). If any of the lower laws are allowed to stay, then it takes the power of thought and of love out of our own hands, and into that of a leader. This would require a good leader worthy of trust, or else the system begins to crumble, and more and more laws have to be created.

If I am correct, then religion, or at least Christ-based religion, is not absolete.

What do you think?

Perhaps I did go a bit far in saying Religion is obsolete. Perhaps I should have simply said that Laws are obsolete. This can be easily seen in our current court system, where Money beats Law in almost all cases. We also have about 6000 years of written history of governments constantly crumbling under their law-based system.

This is still harder to visualize in the case of religion. Religion is not like government, in that the ideals it holds are by nature completely unreachable. Laws are struggled for, but never expected to be attained. This makes it difficult to see any one way or another whether a different system, one based on a concept above law, would work better. Especially since many of these theories are completely untestable until after death. Any visible results could be immediately discounted on faith-based merits. I'm sure you can see how this makes discussion on this topic incredibly difficult.

Also, I was listening to Dennis Prager yesterday (a re-broadcast from earlier in the week), and he posited a rather fascinating hypothesis that ties into this discussion as well: he said that when religion and religious influence is diminished in society, the government and governmental influence is, of necessity, increased. I wish I could find the exact quote and reasoning, but I was unsuccessful. He used as an example the issue of sexual harrassment in the work place. He noted that because of his religious values, both he and his two boys would be disinclined to make to treat women disrespectfully and in sexually inappropriate ways, regardless of whether there were laws preventing it. But, for those who lack that kind of religious influence, the government then needs to step in with the kinds of over-the-top "speach code" legislation like what one may find in California these days.

Although I agree that the laws on the matter are "over-the-top," I do not agree that higher religious influence would solve the problem. It goes directly against the evidence. Most of the harassment, especially in the early days, was from good old WASP's. The data simply doesn't correlate.

But the main issue that Laws are over-the-top still exists. I would think a greater system would implement more inclusive and flexible "common law." That way, the guy smoking pot in his basement watching scoobie doo doesn't get the same punishment as the guy smoking pot while driving 200MPH and getting head from a crack addicted prostitute.

Of course, this only sounds good in theory. In practice, this has very little chance of working well. Once someone corrupt gets power, then it's all over.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Keene Maverick-

[_Gazelam]

I don't know how to answer your question beyond what I have already said.

Lets build further from this point: What did you learn in your supposed revelation? Take us through your personal "theology" that stemmed from your revelations. Give us your articles of faith as it were.

[_keene]

I don't know how to answer your question beyond what I have already said.

Lets build further from this point: What did you learn in your supposed revelation? Take us through your personal "theology" that stemmed from your revelations. Give us your articles of faith as it were.

LOL, that's quite a task. Usually when introducing someone to my beliefs, I sit them down, have them watch 3 or 4 movies, lecture for an hour or two, have them listen to more lectures... A simple passover of my beliefs can take a full weekend. To go into any depth usually requires either a TON of patience, or a hallucinogen. But, I'll try.

Keene Maverick's Articles of Faith!

1.) I believe the question or discussion of whether or not God exists has no value, because there are no visible or testable results.

2.) I believe existence is fully infinite, in every possible and impossible definition of the word.

3.) I believe that all of consciousness behaves under a single law (Law in the sense of physics, like gravity, rather than in the sense of a rule you should try to obey. it's one of those laws that works whether you want it to or not.); that law is the Law of Attraction. Simply put, what you choose to be conscious of determines your reality. (for a greater understanding of this law, the two movies I introduce people two are What the Bleep do we Know? and The Secret. Clips from both can be found on Google Video and YouTube. The Secret can be purchased online in downloadable format for 4.99. I highly suggest this to everyone.)

4.) I believe all matter, energy, and consciousness, on a fundamental level, are one. Litterally. I tend to call this concept the imagination of God.

5.) I believe the reality you choose to live in is fully your own responsibility. You are responsible for your own happiness, and others are responsible for theirs.

6.) I believe in certain principles and ordinances; First, Accountability for your actions. Second, accountability for your REactions. Third, accountability for your feelings. Fourth, accountability for your thoughts. I believe all of these things (actions, reactions, feelings, thoughts), are controllable EASILY.

7.) I believe in the constant and exponential growth of the evolution of the universe, and of the self.

8.) I believe in a modified eight-circuit model of consiousness, similar to the one defined by Timothy Leary. As part of that model, I believe in the use of Entheogens to bring out each circuit, to explore the abilities of the mind and the spirit, and to bond a closer and more meaningful connection with the Imagination of God.

9.) I believe all people, with faith, dedication, and study, can perform all things, including but not limited to all the gifts of the spirit defined in all scriptures of all faiths.

10.) I believe in the universal language of sacred geometry.

11.) I believe these things have been revealed not only to me, but to all prophets of all religions, all world leaders, shamans, and many generally successful people. I believe these revelations were kept secret, for the sake utilizing their power.

12.) I believe in the power of the mind and of the imagination to reveal, feel, and know the infinite. I believe the imagination is the doorway to the Imagination of God.

13.) I believe that after death, our twisted rope of consciousness unravels, and joins the Imagination of God, bringing with it it's experiences. I believe that for a brief moment, or perhaps for all eternity, we will see and understand all experiences of all matter and energy throughout all time, before we throw ourselves back into the infinite loop, to experience it from yet another, brand new, yet infinitely old angle.

14.) For purely humorous reasons, I believe the universe runs on a Base 13 system of numerics. What is nine times five? Fourty-two. (This is particularly interesting when you begin to study the Mayan's and other old religions obsession with 13.)

15.) I believe that my beliefs may be wrong, and that they should be constantly tested, and changed to fit any and all new evidence.

It goes on and on. But those are the very basic beliefs. What I decide to do based on those beliefs, my code of ethics, goes even deeper.

These things, I feel were revealed to me by the divine infinite. During my studies, I find the hints of these beliefs in every scripture, in every success story, in every motivational tape, in every business book, and in every simple story. If consistency is what decides whether it's true, my beliefs have a much wider range of consistency across many more prophets than those in the judeo-christian faith.

Once again, though, our two beliefs are very dramatically different, and yet they were both revealed to us through Moroni's promise, and both with such a power that we "just knew" that it was a revelation, rather than just emotion. How can we verify which, if any, is correct?

Might I take a go at a possible answer, and see if you agree? If you don't, then we can begin our discussion anew.

My thought is that, since internal revelations are so dramatically different across the populous, there must be an external verifier. I would like to discount scriptures as an external verifier, simply because the prophets who wrote them also had vastly differing revelations among themselves, as I pointed out with Numbers ch. 31.

My suggestion is that the governing laws, those with testable results, would be the best possible external verifier. Gravity, thermodynamics, physics... These are universal, and work whether you believe it or not. I would think this is the best place to start from. And many of my personal beliefs have stemmed from my study into Quantum Physics, Psychology, and Biology.

Would you agree that this external verifier could help us determine which, if any, of our revelations are true? If so, then please elaborate on how your beliefs fit this data. If not, Why, and what other method would you propose we use?[/b]

[_wenglund]

He used as an example the issue of sexual harrassment in the work place. He noted that because of his religious values, both he and his two boys would be disinclined to make to treat women disrespectfully and in sexually inappropriate ways, regardless of whether there were laws preventing it. But, for those who lack that kind of religious influence, the government then needs to step in with the kinds of over-the-top "speach code" legislation like what one may find in California these days.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And yet many men aren't religious, yet they still treat women respectfully and would do so without the current workplace laws, simply because that is how they live their lives, without government and without religion. That is what Keene is talking about, I think.

While that may be true in some cases, unfortunately the very existence of the laws today suggest that too often men aren't naturally inclined that way.

This principle applies to women as well. Look at the millions of unborn children who have been killed since the laws against abortions have been eased.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_ozemc]

What happens, then, if when following Moroni's promise, you get a resounding "No" ? And yet again, how can you assure me that this is supernatural, and not a subconscious effect along the lines of auto-suggestion? My feelings, experiences, and revelations seem to take a very different path than yours, even though, at least for some time, our actions were very similar. This seems strange to me. Doesn't it seem strange to you?

Keene

I had a very interesting experience with some missionaries this past week.

I have read quite a bit of the Book of Mormon, and was asked by one if I thought it was true. When I replied "no", they both just looked at me like I was crazy. You see, I have a TBM wife, and have heard the plan of salvation many times, and so, they just couldn't believe that I had heard all this and still didn't believe in it.

When they left, they gave me a "challenge": to re-read the Book of Mormon and then pray about it, that the spirit will testify to its truth.

It's interesting that they didn't accept that the spirit could tell you "no, it's not true".

[_keene]

While that may be true in some cases, unfortunately the very existence of the laws today suggest that too often men aren't naturally inclined that way.

Actually, I don't think the laws suggest that "too often" men are like that. I think they suggest that a few bad apples have required lawyers and politicians to go overboard.

This principle applies to women as well. Look at the millions of unborn children who have been killed since the laws against abortions have been eased.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Also, look at the sudden drop in crime rates about 20 years after the laws against Abortion have been eased. There was a huge crime epidemic, the nation was about to crumble under the pressure, and then, suddenly and unexplicably, the crime rate started declining.

In the book "Freakanomics," They show the statistical correlation to the number of abortions, versus the drop in crime twenty years later. The data tends to suggest that those getting abortions are the people who would not take care of their children, and who would most likely raise criminals.

There is also very similar statistical data from many other countries. In one country, it was shown that after a ban on abortion, about 20 years later, there was a vast overpopulation of teenagers, all revolting against the current government. I don't recall the nation, but if necessary I can grab the book and make the proper references.

My point isn't to say that Abortion is good or bad, but only to point out the data, and perhaps to challenge previous belief systems.

[_keene]

What happens, then, if when following Moroni's promise, you get a resounding "No" ? And yet again, how can you assure me that this is supernatural, and not a subconscious effect along the lines of auto-suggestion? My feelings, experiences, and revelations seem to take a very different path than yours, even though, at least for some time, our actions were very similar. This seems strange to me. Doesn't it seem strange to you?

Keene

I had a very interesting experience with some missionaries this past week.

I have read quite a bit of the Book of Mormon, and was asked by one if I thought it was true. When I replied "no", they both just looked at me like I was crazy. You see, I have a TBM wife, and have heard the plan of salvation many times, and so, they just couldn't believe that I had heard all this and still didn't believe in it.

When they left, they gave me a "challenge": to re-read the Book of Mormon and then pray about it, that the spirit will testify to its truth.

It's interesting that they didn't accept that the spirit could tell you "no, it's not true".

When I start to hear someone try to discount evolution, I get the same incredulous look on my face. I simply can't understand how someone could believe something that was so obviously true!

And yet, people do. It goes both way. In my mind, it throws a monkey-wrench into the concept of truth. What is truth? How can that be verified? Are there any tests we can create that would define truth, and weed out any untruth in any belief system?

I would think finding the answers to these questions would be the ultimate conversion tool -- if truth can be verified and tested, then it can be COMPLETELY known. This will solve our main problems of differing revelations and testimonies.

Of course, this still operates from the assumption that truth is static. If this assumption proves false, then we must simply accept that truth exists only in the mind of the individual, and grow a strong tolerance to the truth of others.

[_wenglund]

To me, Christ's fulfilling of the law did not put an end to all laws, it merely subsummed the lower law that governed from the time of Moses, under the new and higher law presented by Christ. If interested, I explain this in more detail in an online article titled Covenants and Associated Testators, Promises, Laws, Rituals, and Tokens. The article was written in conjunction with and article on "works and Salvation", but I think it also has application to the issue you raise.

I did skim your article, but did not take the time to read it fully, so if some of my responses are answered in that article, please let me know, and if possible quote the relevant information. I simply don't have the time to spend going through it all.

What my major concern with this particular belief (that lower laws were subsummed) is how do we know which laws are kept, and which are replaced by "higher" law? Other than the obvious (STONE THEM!! being replaced by LOVE THEM!!!), which laws are still required and which aren't? And under what authority do we know this?

If you look at the laws from the standpoint of living them, rather than from the standpoint of exacting punishment for not living them, then, to me, making the determination is not all that problematic. As a rule of thumb: when in doubt, abide the lower law.

I am not sure that authority is required for us to live more loving and elevated lives. Do you?

It seems more logical, at least to myself, that all of the laws should be replaced with a higher concept; that of Love. This will allow us to think about each action on it's own merit, thereby weeding out the uneccessary laws (such as No using magical healing on sundays, or No U turn at 3am with no traffic). If any of the lower laws are allowed to stay, then it takes the power of thought and of love out of our own hands, and into that of a leader. This would require a good leader worthy of trust, or else the system begins to crumble, and more and more laws have to be created.

For the most part I agree with your logic. However, I look at higher laws in a way like I do higher education. Not everyone is prepared to receive higher education. Certainly, a child going into kindergarten, who is struggling to master the alphabet, can't reasonably be expected to be responsible for knowing trigonometry. The same is true with spiritual laws. Not everyone is prepared and able to abide the higher law of sacrifice as covenanted to in the temple. Many in the gospel are still spiritual babes and teens who are struggling to keep the lower law of tithing. So, transitioning from the lower law to higher law is not an event, but a growth process, sometimes line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

If I am correct, then religion, or at least Christ-based religion, is not absolete.

What do you think?

Perhaps I did go a bit far in saying Religion is obsolete. Perhaps I should have simply said that Laws are obsolete. This can be easily seen in our current court system, where Money beats Law in almost all cases. We also have about 6000 years of written history of governments constantly crumbling under their law-based system.

I can see how money and power can, at times and to some degree, circumvent and corrupt the law. But, I personally don't see it happening in most cases. Even still, I don't see a viable option. There is no real history of anarchy because people quickly learn how unworkable that concept is. One can only imagine what money and power would do without at least some constraints of the law.

This is still harder to visualize in the case of religion. Religion is not like government, in that the ideals it holds are by nature completely unreachable. Laws are struggled for, but never expected to be attained. This makes it difficult to see any one way or another whether a different system, one based on a concept above law, would work better. Especially since many of these theories are completely untestable until after death. Any visible results could be immediately discounted on faith-based merits. I'm sure you can see how this makes discussion on this topic incredibly difficult.

Perhaps your reason for thinking them "unreachable" is because you are viewing the abiding of spiritual laws as an event, rather than as a growth process, and/or because you view lower and higher spiritual laws as discrete sets, rather than arrayed on a spectrum. The higher laws are reachable in much the same way that higher education is reachable, through growth in knowledge and obedience.

Also, I was listening to Dennis Prager yesterday (a re-broadcast from earlier in the week), and he posited a rather fascinating hypothesis that ties into this discussion as well: he said that when religion and religious influence is diminished in society, the government and governmental influence is, of necessity, increased. I wish I could find the exact quote and reasoning, but I was unsuccessful. He used as an example the issue of sexual harrassment in the work place. He noted that because of his religious values, both he and his two boys would be disinclined to make to treat women disrespectfully and in sexually inappropriate ways, regardless of whether there were laws preventing it. But, for those who lack that kind of religious influence, the government then needs to step in with the kinds of over-the-top "speach code" legislation like what one may find in California these days.

Although I agree that the laws on the matter are "over-the-top," I do not agree that higher religious influence would solve the problem. It goes directly against the evidence. Most of the harassment, especially in the early days, was from good old WASP's. The data simply doesn't correlate.

I agree. My point isn't an either/or situation, but it is in people's interest to encourage religion and religious observance rather than discourage it so as to avoid over oppression by the government. It is shifting the balance somewhat (not to be confused with adopting the one to the exclusion of the other) towards self-governance through religious moral/laws, and away from governmental totalitarianism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_rcrocket]

Also, look at the sudden drop in crime rates about 20 years after the laws against Abortion have been eased. There was a huge crime epidemic, the nation was about to crumble under the pressure, and then, suddenly and unexplicably, the crime rate started declining.

In the book "Freakanomics," They show the statistical correlation to the number of abortions, versus the drop in crime twenty years later. The data tends to suggest that those getting abortions are the people who would not take care of their children, and who would most likely raise criminals.

There is also very similar statistical data from many other countries. In one country, it was shown that after a ban on abortion, about 20 years later, there was a vast overpopulation of teenagers, all revolting against the current government. I don't recall the nation, but if necessary I can grab the book and make the proper references.

My point isn't to say that Abortion is good or bad, but only to point out the data, and perhaps to challenge previous belief systems.

You have really understated this. The book points out that abortion is an assault upon blacks, in that it affects them and their families the most.

P

[_keene]

If you look at the laws from the standpoint of living them, rather than from the standpoint of exacting punishment for not living them, then, to me, making the determination is not all that problematic. As a rule of thumb: when in doubt, abide the lower law.

I am not sure that authority is required for us to live more loving and elevated lives. Do you?

Very interesting, Wade. Although, this approach would still be problematic. Especially the 'when in doubt' option. This leaves the door open for certain leaders and authority figures to oppress, even to the point where those of us who do live the higher law are held back.

I would definitely agree that authority is not required to live a better life. Which is why I ask what authority gives the laws, specifically, those that oppress rather than elevate. If that authority is null, then it opens the door to the elevated freedom an altruistic heart can provide.

It also seems that this particular approach (veiwing the law in the context of living them) is exactly the point I'm trying to make. I suppose on this we agree.

For the most part I agree with your logic. However, I look at higher laws in a way like I do higher education. Not everyone is prepared to receive higher education. Certainly, a child going into kindergarten, who is struggling to master the alphabet, can't reasonably be expected to be responsible for knowing trigonometry. The same is true with spiritual laws. Not everyone is prepared and able to abide the higher law of sacrifice as covenanted to in the temple. Many in the gospel are still spiritual babes and teens who are struggling to keep the lower law of tithing. So, transitioning from the lower law to higher law is not an event, but a growth process, sometimes line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

To continue your analogy -- would you punish the child for being unable to learn trigonometry?

I still very strongly disagree with the assumption that the lower laws must be lived first to understand the higher laws. This bottom-up approach seems like we're going in backwards. Especially when you find that the makers of the laws did so in order to solve a higher problem. If the makers of the law saw the higher problem, and then enacted a solution, why is everyone else subjected to doing the reverse -- acting the solution only to later understand the reason for it? It seems counter-intuitive to the natural functioning of the human spirit -- the ability to problem solve.

I also have one more slight issue with what you said, and that concerns the law of sacrifice. Although I understand the principles for it, I believe it is outdated. It's function is to create a world of equality, which on the surface seems like a very noble goal. But a goal that nonetheless defeats the power of justice, of getting what you work for. It, in my mind at least, distorts the meaning of fairness to a shallow one. This may be just my personal belief, but I believe the universe is an abundant place, and that anyone who works for their own sake will get what they work for. I believe there is plenty for any who would ask to receive -- but ask in action, not in words.

I can see how money and power can, at times and to some degree, circumvent and corrupt the law. But, I personally don't see it happening in most cases. Even still, I don't see a viable option. There is no real history of anarchy because people quickly learn how unworkable that concept is. One can only imagine what money and power would do without at least some constraints of the law.

Yes, the only way anarchy could possibly work is if each individual person had a strong ethical code. Fortunately, I see hints of the power of ethics growing throughout society. Google and AES are my two corporate examples. This message board is in many ways my experiment to determine what fundamental "rules" are required for a free society.

I'll agree with you that I do not see a viable option... Yet. I think to stop seeking would be the greatest insult to mankind I could ever make. Just because a viable option hasn't presented itself yet is no reason to think that it wont. And if part of that option or ability is to replace laws with a higher power, then I will try to seek a way for this to happen.

Perhaps my goal is a bit above what is possible. So was heavier-than-air flight.

Perhaps your reason for thinking them "unreachable" is because you are viewing the abiding of spiritual laws as an event, rather than as a growth process, and/or because you view lower and higher spiritual laws as discrete sets, rather than arrayed on a spectrum. The higher laws are reachable in much the same way that higher education is reachable, through growth in knowledge and obedience.

I do see Obedience as an event. In that context, abiding the lower laws are events.

I do see the possibility for the growth process, but I see obedience as getting in the way of that process, moreso than it helps. This again has to do with my reversal of your spectrum of higher vs. lower laws. The mind would rather work in the other way -- see a problem, seek a solution.

Allow me to use Tithing as an example, since you used that example earlier. With your spectrum, obedience to the law of tithing should be worked towards, until it is attained. At that point, the higher law of sacrifice should be understood well enough that perhaps more tithing than the law requires is paid. Or perhaps other charitable actions are gained. Am I correct in this reasoning?

Now if we reverse that spectrum, and work from the top down; We first see a problem: the poor and homeless are everywhere. There are not enough churches. The meetings are boring without food. We then seek a solution: I have money, I can give it to these people. At this point, there is no minimum or maximum to the new law someone just created for themselves. Charity comes out naturally.

It also allows for greater solutions to come from the more creative people. Perhaps rather than give money, one person would like to build a shelter.

And, it puts the power of responsibility directly into the hands of the person creating the law for themselves. Rather than placing the trust into a person or corporation that may be corrupt.

Of course, not everyone will create this law for themselves. Those who want to create this law, and those with the resources to do it will do it. Those who don't create this law will focus on solving other problems that those with the charitable heart won't be able to focus on.

And what of those who don't act in a decent societal way? Well... These people seem to act this way whether there are laws or not, I don't think abolishing the laws would have any decent impact on this. My personal belief is that if each individual had the responsibility to protect themselves, rather than trusting governmental agencies like the police, that the system would naturally balance itself out. The second someone says "Why doesn't someone do something!" it means the responsibility is not theirs, and they will suffer for it.

I agree. My point isn't an either/or situation, but it is in people's interest to encourage religion and religious observance rather than discourage it so as to avoid over oppression by the government. It is shifting the balance somewhat (not to be confused with adopting the one to the exclusion of the other) towards self-governance through religious moral/laws, and away from governmental totalitarianism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My question to you then, is do you think self-governance through morals/ethics can happen without religion, why or why not?