Michael Flynn: We should be a nation of One Religion

[canpakes]

ajax, to bridge the gap between my answer and your question, imagine how you learn to react to fire.

[ajax18]

This is all I'm going to say on this.

2Nephi 2:13 And if ye shall say there is a no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

[Moksha]

I think that one religion idea goes hand in hand with Flynn's idea to have a military coup to form a fascist dictatorship. One ring to rule them all.

[canpakes]

This is all I'm going to say on this.

2Nephi 2:13 And if ye shall say there is a no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

That basically says, “Stuff; therefore, God”. This also means that sin and suffering are created by God.

Anyway, that doesn’t speak to free will or the ability to decide what’s objectively or subjectively right or wrong.

The other problem is that this does nothing to support Flynn’s claim, with respect to Judeo-Christian values, or otherwise.

[Some Schmo]

This is all I'm going to say on this.

2Nephi 2:13 And if ye shall say there is a no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

That basically says, “Stuff; therefore, God”. This also means that sin and suffering are created by God.

Anyway, that doesn’t speak to free will or the ability to decide what’s objectively or subjectively right or wrong.

The other problem is that this does nothing to support Flynn’s claim, with respect to Judeo-Christian values, or otherwise.

Reading passages for the Book of Mormon always makes me chuckle when I reflect on the number of times people have said they find it inspired.

The dude was basically riffing on the idea that we can't know what's good without knowing what's bad, and then tries to extend that to the existence of a creator. OMG, the sheer genius of it all!

It's about as inspired as a diarrhea fart.

[canpakes]

The dude was basically riffing on the idea that we can't know what's good without knowing what's bad, and then tries to extend that to the existence of a creator. OMG, the sheer genius of it all!

It's about as inspired as a diarrhea fart.

I can appreciate where Smith was trying to go with that when he came up with it, but it’s overly simplistic, and doesn’t necessarily hold true anyway. Not all ‘good’ actions or decisions have a neatly defined opposing ‘bad’ counterpart, and vice versa.

That rule sure doesn’t work with food, either. : D

[Some Schmo]

I can appreciate where Smith was trying to go with that when he came up with it, but it’s overly simplistic, and doesn’t necessarily hold true anyway. Not all ‘good’ actions or decisions have a neatly defined opposing ‘bad’ counterpart, and vice versa.

That rule sure doesn’t work with food, either. : D

I believe the idea has more to do with degrees than with binary choices.

So, I could eat a burger at one place, and think it's ok. Then I eat a burger at a upscale restaurant and think, "Wow, this is really good," partly because I've had the experience of the mediocre burger.

But of course, you're right in that the way Joseph Smith wrote that verse makes it sound like everything is binary.

[Gunnar]

Who cares? Whatever it is, you don't have it. Which says plenty about your "faith."

I do think just about everyone is born with it, but many are taught (indirectly) to ignore it. My guess is that ajax is in that bucket.

On the other hand, he could be a psychopath and has only a theoretical notion of what a conscience is. That would explain glomming it onto religion.

I am not as sure as you are that everyone is born with it. I think a newborn baby probably has practically zero understand of much of anything beyond its own immediate needs and comfort or discomfort. They have to learn what love and compassion means from the example of loving parents. At least some of them, though, begin to acquire that understanding quite early, I remember one instance when I was a young father, cuddling and rocking my first child in my lap while reading or singing to her, as she contentedly munched on a cookie. She was less than a year old, and had not yet begun to learn to talk or even walk, but she noticed that her dear old daddy did not have a cookie. So she reached into her mouth and pulled out the cookie she had just started munching on, and stuffed it into my mouth. It was the most precious and endearing fatherhood experience I had had up to that time!

[Some Schmo]

I do think just about everyone is born with it, but many are taught (indirectly) to ignore it. My guess is that ajax is in that bucket.

On the other hand, he could be a psychopath and has only a theoretical notion of what a conscience is. That would explain glomming it onto religion.

I am not as sure as you are that everyone is born with it. I think a newborn baby probably has practically zero understand of much of anything beyond its own immediate needs and comfort or discomfort. They have to learn what love and compassion means from the example of loving parents.

I don't think that's true. There are kids who grow up in loveless homes who turn out loving and compassionate despite their parents' example.

"Born with it" is a bit of a euphemism. People are "born with" talents, but we don't actually notice them until they're old enough to perform with those talents.

And I'll also point out that I said "just about everyone" because some clearly are not.

At least some of them, though, begin to acquire that understanding quite early, I remember one instance when I was a young father, cuddling and rocking my first child in my lap while reading or singing to her, as she contentedly munched on a cookie. She was less than a year old, and had not yet begun to learn to talk or even walk, but she noticed that her dear old daddy did not have a cookie. So she reached into her mouth and pulled out the cookie she had just started munching on, and stuffed it into my mouth. It was the most precious and endearing fatherhood experience I had had up to that time!

Sweet story. Man, kids are great when they're young.

[Gunnar]

I am not as sure as you are that everyone is born with it. I think a newborn baby probably has practically zero understand of much of anything beyond its own immediate needs and comfort or discomfort. They have to learn what love and compassion means from the example of loving parents.

I don't think that's true. There are kids who grow up in loveless homes who turn out loving and compassionate despite their parents' example.

Good point! But there are always exceptions. Statistically, people raised in loveless and abusive homes are far more likely to be abusive themselves, when adults, than those who weren't so raised. I still think that a newborn babe has little or no concept of right or wrong or compassion for others.

"Born with it" is a bit of a euphemism. People are "born with" talents, but we don't actually notice them until they're old enough to perform with those talents.

And I'll also point out that I said "just about everyone" because some clearly are not.

Also admittedly good points!

At least some of them, though, begin to acquire that understanding quite early, I remember one instance when I was a young father, cuddling and rocking my first child in my lap while reading or singing to her, as she contentedly munched on a cookie. She was less than a year old, and had not yet begun to learn to talk or even walk, but she noticed that her dear old daddy did not have a cookie. So she reached into her mouth and pulled out the cookie she had just started munching on, and stuffed it into my mouth. It was the most precious and endearing fatherhood experience I had had up to that time!

Sweet story. Man, kids are great when they're young.

Thanks. I think so too. But, it just occurred to me, what if she was simply annoyed with my reading or singing and was merely trying to get me to shut up?