CaliforniaKid wrote:[...] Of course, it might be easier to just chalk the passage up to an interpolation by the gospel writers. But that's a lot less fun than coming up with feminist readings of obscure Aramaic New Testament manuscripts...
-Chris
Ha! So true. Now, if we could only establish that there were feminists that were authoring obscure Aramaic New Testament manuscripts; maybe that’s what happened to Lilyth.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
You may consciously think you'd be better off if you could just believe, but I think there's something going on in your world that makes the choice to not believe more appealing.
Well if that's so then how do you go ahead and choose? If you can just choose wouldn't you be able to choose despite what issues are lurking about? This to me seems to mean that you really can't choose! It seems to me that you may try to choose and yet can't because there are doubts or insecurities about belief. So, I choose unbelief because my inner whateversmelterintherewhatever has decided NOT to believe? Even though my outer whatever tries to believe? That seems like a big *ACK!*
I guess it's a bit of a paradox because while you can't really consciously choose what to believe, you're unconscious has to make a choice at some point.
Like I said; some stuff is unknowable. How does one come to a belief about the unknowable stuff without at some point choosing among the many options out there?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
bcspace wrote:Such a God is a liar and a respector of persons by implication. For example....
If God tells one group of people a certain thing about sin, the requirements for salvation, or His nature and then proceeds to tell another group of people something different about those items, then God is a liar and respector of persons.
That is the implication of believing in a God as you describe.
No, the implication of the God I describe is that 90 % of the people who ever claimed to speak for God were either liars or sick in the head.
CaliforniaKid wrote:No, the implication of the God I describe is that 90 % of the people who ever claimed to speak for God were either liars or sick in the head.
You know, it's really refreshing to hear someone thoughtfully ponder the issues we all face: what do we really believe and why? I've been uniformly impressed by your posts. Who knows where you'll end up, but at least you have the courage to find your own path.
bcspace wrote:Such a God is a liar and a respector of persons by implication. For example....
If God tells one group of people a certain thing about sin, the requirements for salvation, or His nature and then proceeds to tell another group of people something different about those items, then God is a liar and respector of persons.
That is the implication of believing in a God as you describe.
Look at it this way, bc. I have 6 children, all of whom are very different in personality and talents. I would be a lousy father if I used the same parenting approach for all of them. I have a pretty good idea what challenges each child faces, so I adapt my parenting to help each of them overcome them.
Why wouldn't God do the same for his children? It might make him "inconsistent" to those who refuse to accept any flexibility in God, but it doesn't make him a liar or a respecter of persons.
The difference is that, as a good parent, you wouldn't use a specialized parenting approach on one of your children, and then tell him that it is the one true way of doing things, and that he must deliver the message to all of his siblings. And then proceed to do the same thing with each of your children, but with contradictory information - insisting that whatever the other kids may think you told them, the child you're speaking to at that moment has the full, uncorrupted truth.
"Every post you can hitch your faith on is a pie in the sky, chock full of lies, a tool we devise to make sinking stones fly"
The Shins - A Comet Appears
That is the implication of believing in a God as you describe.
Look at it this way, bc. I have 6 children, all of whom are very different in personality and talents. I would be a lousy father if I used the same parenting approach for all of them. I have a pretty good idea what challenges each child faces, so I adapt my parenting to help each of them overcome them.
Why wouldn't God do the same for his children? It might make him "inconsistent" to those who refuse to accept any flexibility in God, but it doesn't make him a liar or a respecter of persons.
There are many paths to the one path that leads to God. Doesn't change the implication.
That is the implication of believing in a God as you describe.
No, the implication of the God I describe is that 90 % of the people who ever claimed to speak for God were either liars or sick in the head.
Since I happen to believe that 99% of such people fall into that category, the implication I mentioned does not change (only one God authorized religion/philosophy).
That is the implication of believing in a God as you describe.
Look at it this way, bc. I have 6 children, all of whom are very different in personality and talents. I would be a lousy father if I used the same parenting approach for all of them. I have a pretty good idea what challenges each child faces, so I adapt my parenting to help each of them overcome them.
Why wouldn't God do the same for his children? It might make him "inconsistent" to those who refuse to accept any flexibility in God, but it doesn't make him a liar or a respecter of persons.
There are many paths to the one path that leads to God. Doesn't change the implication.
What exactly does that mean? I thought that according to LDS theology, this life was about learning how to become like God. Who are we to say that some people need to learn different things to become like him? That would not make God inconsistent, but wise.
If others see you living as a functional theist, leading a congregation (you still do that?), won't they be misled by your example? I don't mean to call you a hypocrite, but I wonder how you make the outward and inward fit together. You are an agnostic; is that something you will hide from people who know you in real life?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
I have relinquished my ministerial responsibilities, and I do not plan to take them up again. You're right; that would be hypocritical. I will not hide my intellectual agnosticism, but I don't intend to go around broadcasting it, either. It is something that I will share with people close to me insofar as I feel comfortable doing so.
I've thought a lot about the moral implications of this way of living, and I am satisfied enough that I'm on morally acceptable ground that I'm not going to fret about it too terribly much. As I mentioned in a previous post, I do "suspend disbelief" after a fashion. So it's not so much that I'm pretending to be a Christian even though I'm not as that I'm choosing to be a Christian even though I realize there's no rational reason for doing so.