If I were a Christian......

[_cricket]

I would be incapable of having thirty-five billion dollars in my pocket while people starve.

I couldn't tell little girls that their sole purpose in life is to have children and serve a husband.

I would never lie.

I would insist that anything less than an egalitarian society is not good enough.

The evidence that we have does not point to the existence of Jesus. Still, I can't help hoping and wishing that He existed because I think that if we actually followed His teachings, we would literally save the world.

Question:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, a fable, or the actual savior of the world?

Thanks,

Cricket

[_Coggins7]

I would be incapable of having thirty-five billion dollars in my pocket while people starve.

If I had thrity five billion dollars in my pocket, and even if I gave every penny of it away to hungry people, most of the people starving in the world would still be starving today, and most of the people I was able to feed with that money would soon enough, be starving again (for reasons I won't go into at the moment) I would also then be broke, and unable to feed any more hungry people.

I couldn't tell little girls that their sole purpose in life is to have children and serve a husband.

There is no such doctrine in the restored gospel, and I do not believe most Christians believe such a thing either.

I would never lie.

Good. Christians should never lie. By the way, as you've implied you are not a Christian, and said that if you were a Christian you would never lie, does this imply that, as a non-Christian, you allow yourself some leeway in that area?

I would insist that anything less than an egalitarian society is not good enough.

The gospel and the New Testament imply no such egalitarian society if by that you mean Socialism, or a society based on coerced equality of condition or outcome. Its doctrine of free agency and the right of each individual to determine for himself his own response to the gospel message negates any such notions. Indeed, as you are obviously concerned about poverty, egalitarianism, as a practical matter, everywhere it has ever been tried, has produced only a general equality of destitution or, in democratic socialist countries, general economic mediocrity. Egalitarian social orders spread poverty more equally among the general population, but do not solve the core problem of poverty, one of the primary reasons for which is that Socialism destroys both wealth creation as well as the ingrained habits of mind and personal psycholgical characteristics necessary to the kind of productive activity that creates new wealth, which is the only answer, aside from the spiritual dynamics of the problem, to lack of adaquate temporal rescources. Without golden gooses, there are no golden eggs.

The evidence that we have does not point to the existence of Jesus. Still, I can't help hoping and wishing that He existed because I think that if we actually followed His teachings, we would literally save the world.

This is nonesene my friend. Even the Jesus Seminar folks believe he existed.

[_cricket]

Crap!

I was really hoping that it would be somebody other than you that answered my first thread!

If you think that Mormonism is a fine example of how to care for your fellow man, then you and I will never see eye to eye. Honestly, you give me the screaming willies.

I am more curious to find out what people who are struggling with right and wrong outside of a strict set of rules are thinking. I want to know what life is like for those who can freely admit that they don't know what the secret to life itself is. I want to learn about the thought processes of individuals like myself who truly think that being decent and kind is more important than any set theology.

Again, how does Jesus fit into your own moral paradigm? Is He a historical figure or an allegory? Does it even matter?

[_Coggins7]

Crap!

Please, no profanity...

I was really hoping that it would be somebody other than you that answered my first thread!

You deserve only the best.

If you think that Mormonism is a fine example of how to care for your fellow man, then you and I will never see eye to eye. Honestly, you give me the screaming willies.

I do honestly believe that the restored gospel, and any true Christian principles carried out by anyone of any demonimation or faith tradition, is a fine example of how to care for our fellow man, and far better that many of the misguided or disasterous human political examples that have been tried.

I am more curious to find out what people who are struggling with right and wrong outside of a strict set of rules are thinking. I want to know what life is like for those who can freely admit that they don't know what the secret to life itself is. I want to learn about the thought processes of individuals like myself who truly think that being decent and kind is more important than any set theology.

People who struggle with the concepts of right and wrong outside of a coherent moral paradigim or set of rules within which that struggle can take place are struggling with concepts that only have meaning within such a rule bound, coherant moral paradigim, and hence, cannot possible make sense of those concepts outside such comceptual boundries. What do you mean by 'the secret of life". Do you think Mormons think they know what "it" is?

Being decent and kind can certianly take place outside of organized religion and outside of set theologies. I doubt, however, that it can take place outside of a coherant personal moral and philosophical worldview which does not contain principles of right and wrong astonishingly close to those of organized religion.

Again, how does Jesus fit into your own moral paradigm? Is He a historical figure or an allegory? Does it even matter?

He is the divine Son of God, the Redeemer and Savior of mankind, and the God of this universe. He is also the ultimate authority as to morality and decency.


Loran

[_Runtu]

Not to derail the thread, but my very Mormon wife was told that our 12 year old was using profanity at school, and we found out that it was specifically the word "crap."

I had to remind my wife that only one person in our marriage uses that word. ;-)

[_cricket]

You still give me the screaming willies, and I still have no interest in communicating with you. If you believe that being a Mormon is the way to go, then more power to you. Please do not pretend, however, that the group you claim allegiance to does not claim to know the mind of God.

Is there anybody besides this guy on this forum?

[_Coggins7]

You still give me the screaming willies, and I still have no interest in communicating with you. If you believe that being a Mormon is the way to go, then more power to you. Please do not pretend, however, that the group you claim allegiance to does not claim to know the mind of God.

Is there anybody besides this guy on this forum?

At least I'm not giving you the Slick Willies, in which case I would be terribly offended. Even worse would be the Screaming Slick Willies, or SSW's, a new personality disorder that's only very recently been added to the DSM-IV. But this is nothing when compared to the Chilly Willies or the Screaming Willie Wonkas, both of which can involve severe withdrawl symptoms that may need medical supervision. Of course there is also the much more common but still very traumatic Screaming Wet Willies and the Screaming Wet Willy Nilly's, both of which we'll have to go to the Telestial room to discuss. Then of coures you know that little Willy, Willy won't go home and you can't push Willy 'round 'cause Willy won't go (and if you're a gen Xer or post Gen X, don't worry about that one becaue you've probably never heard of it).

Oh, there's one more thing you should be very careful about, and that's the Screaming, howling, mewling, barking, braying willies, which can be very embarrasing in public and may require institutionalization. But don't worry, treatment is available.

Loran

[_gramps]

Hi. Maybe I can help save you from the wildman.

It's a nice thread if it gets its' legs.

I guess you could call me an atheist, and an agnostic for that matter. I still feel that I can be an ethical person. I in no way believe that there was a Savior of Mankind. Belief in the Fall and Atonement are magical thinking at its best, in my estimation.

How I arrive at ethical decisions seem to me to be a combination of Golden Rule/Kantian "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" stuff and sometimes some utilitarian pleasure/happiness unit calculation. And you can throw in some "gut feeling" in there as well.

The Savior works as a magnet, if you will, drawing you into a better way of life. There is nothing more metaphysical about it. There was no warp in the universe, as a result of the Fall, that His atonement had to "hammer out."

He is a magnet. The point is, there can be many magnets and I have used all sorts of "magnets" to draw me toward something I needed (including self-development).

I do not trust "whisperings" or "voices" as manifestations of God speaking to me. I have received "pure strokes of intelligence" in and outside of the Church. The Church does not have a patent on any of that stuff. It can probably all be explained by an understanding of the chemical processes going on inside the brain. Perhaps.

Whatever it is, what these Mormons would describe, particular to their "true" religion, as the Spirit is not bottleable and is not what they claim to know it is.

I hope this thread gets going. I would be interested in how others "work out their salvation" without a belief in the Savior.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

The evidence that we have does not point to the existence of Jesus. Still, I can't help hoping and wishing that He existed because I think that if we actually followed His teachings, we would literally save the world.

Question:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, a fable, or the actual savior of the world?

Thanks,

Cricket

I don't know if he is historical, but I like to believe he is and that he can save by example, not divinity.

[_Mister Scratch]

<sigh> So much for Loran's vow to lay off the cheap shots.

I would be incapable of having thirty-five billion dollars in my pocket while people starve.

I couldn't tell little girls that their sole purpose in life is to have children and serve a husband.

I would never lie.

I would insist that anything less than an egalitarian society is not good enough.

The evidence that we have does not point to the existence of Jesus. Still, I can't help hoping and wishing that He existed because I think that if we actually followed His teachings, we would literally save the world.

Question:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, a fable, or the actual savior of the world?

Thanks,

Cricket

I would be incapable of having thirty-five billion dollars in my pocket while people starve.

If I had thrity five billion dollars in my pocket, and even if I gave every penny of it away to hungry people, most of the people starving in the world would still be starving today, and most of the people I was able to feed with that money would soon enough, be starving again (for reasons I won't go into at the moment) I would also then be broke, and unable to feed any more hungry people.

Perhaps you should read the thread on the Sao Paulo Temple. It turns out that the Church absolutely agrees with you. In fact, the Church fully approves of Third World members yanking gold fillings out of their teeth in order to help pay for temples.

I couldn't tell little girls that their sole purpose in life is to have children and serve a husband.

There is no such doctrine in the restored gospel, and I do not believe most Christians believe such a thing either.

You yourself have said that "gender" is dictated by the Gospel. Are you now claiming that childrearing and bearing is *not* solely and primarily the function of women?

I would never lie.

Good. Christians should never lie. By the way, as you've implied you are not a Christian, and said that if you were a Christian you would never lie, does this imply that, as a non-Christian, you allow yourself some leeway in that area?

As a TBM, do you allow yourself some leeway in terms of apologizing for below-the-belt posts, and then resuming them as soon as the mood suits you?

I would insist that anything less than an egalitarian society is not good enough.

The gospel and the New Testament imply no such egalitarian society if by that you mean Socialism, or a society based on coerced equality of condition or outcome. Its doctrine of free agency and the right of each individual to determine for himself his own response to the gospel message negates any such notions. Indeed, as you are obviously concerned about poverty, egalitarianism, as a practical matter, everywhere it has ever been tried, has produced only a general equality of destitution or, in democratic socialist countries, general economic mediocrity. Egalitarian social orders spread poverty more equally among the general population, but do not solve the core problem of poverty, one of the primary reasons for which is that Socialism destroys both wealth creation as well as the ingrained habits of mind and personal psycholgical characteristics necessary to the kind of productive activity that creates new wealth, which is the only answer, aside from the spiritual dynamics of the problem, to lack of adaquate temporal rescources. Without golden gooses, there are no golden eggs.

The evidence that we have does not point to the existence of Jesus. Still, I can't help hoping and wishing that He existed because I think that if we actually followed His teachings, we would literally save the world.

This is nonesene my friend. Even the Jesus Seminar folks believe he existed.

Even Joseph Smith supported a form of Socialism.