It has been a while since I’ve posted anything here. But the other day I had a thought that I wanted to post here. So here’s another post.
My previous posts have centered on God and spiritual things and of course this one is pretty much the same in that respect. I mean no offense to anyone by such posts. It would probably be worthwhile to remember the advice I’ve heard somewhere and paraphrase here:
A person is better off who takes no offense, even when offense is intended, than the one who finds offense when none is intended.
Anyway, I have sensed animosity from some of the posters here on this site toward God, religion, and/or the LDS church.
It may be true that many wars have been in some way connected with religion, as have other torment and atrocities. But “Pure religion and undefiled” the scripture says “… is … To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (see James 1:27) I believe it’s when people twist things that wars result “in the name of God.”
Anyway, to the thought I had the other day. Even if God did not exist, even if the LDS church were not true, would it really matter? As I follow them, I’m working for and promoting the cause of human happiness, of joy in people’s lives. The things I’ve learned there lead me to seek the good of others. As a result of the things I’ve learned through the church and my relationship with God, I strive to show love to others around me. (I know I’m not perfect, but I strive to improve.)
One could argue that truth is important and desirable, and that if the truth were that God did not exist or a particular religion were not true in its teachings, that they should be abandoned. But I would say that love is probably a higher cause than truth.
I’m not talking about romantic love that leads to desires of the flesh. I’m talking of love that leads to caring and concern for others, love that instills a desire to help someone else, even to give up something of value for the benefit of another. I’m talking about love that refrains from judging and overlooks negative things that may be obvious in another person, in order to lift him or her up.
Truth is a valuable thing, but I’d say that this kind of love is greater. So if my faith and belief in God and my following The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lead me to such a love, then weather true or false, how far wrong could I be?
To all those here who were raised in the LDS church (or any church teaching “love one another”) and then left it and say you’ve reasoned out for yourselves many good and noble things for the good of humanity, may I suggest that perhaps the foundations of your reasoning might come from some of the ideals taught in your years of upbringing by the church (and God) that you’ve abandoned?
If you were raised up in a Hitler-style environment, and you were not the target of the hurt and pain inflicted, would you have come to the same conclusions? Maybe…but can you be sure?
I am sorry that for those who have left the circles of religion (and in my mind especially the LDS church) that apparently negative things came from the same organization that leads me to work for good things. None of us is perfect and some still haven’t really got the vision of love that Christ’s gospel teaches.
It’s not about a list of rules that magically get you into heaven. It’s about love–love that Jesus Christ has for us and the love he asks us to actively show to his Father and to all mankind.
In my church involvement, I enjoy opportunities to cheer up some of the kids I know there, to give them a hug and make them feel good. I love to see their smiles and know that I’m doing something good. I enjoy home teaching and meeting new people and building a friendship with them and helping them at times. I see children being raised in the Church and being taught inspiring things that tend to lead them to higher heights and greater causes. I see people striving to become better than they were before, seeking that ideal of love. Weather or not the Church is true, weather or not God exists, I know that the core things I see there are good and right.
Unfortunately, this world has a way of beating people down, of taking those ideals and belittling them, of making them seem useless or unimportant. This world and the struggles in it slowly draw many people away from the good that is taught. So while a certain core of the people may get closer to the ideal, there are those (and I believe statistically they are many) who don’t seem to understand it.
In the end, if my following God and the LDS church, lead me to find peace, hope, and joy in my life and also lead me to strive to add some measure of joy to others, what is lost? Even if there were no afterlife, then I would have lived my life with joy and spread joy also to others and then my life would end. In such a case, are there many better things that could be said about one life lived?
emilt
Offense, and more…
Glad to have you fly in for a visit, Emil!
For my part, you’ve never offended me. However, I think you are fighting a spiritual battle to retain your faith in spite of overwhelming personal difficulties. This forum, IMHO, ends up collateral damage from your apologetics assault.
Grief, according to the Kübler-Ross model, often involves some level of denial, bargaining, anger, depression and acceptance. I think if you asked my wife point-blank what her experience has been like with me leaving the church, it’s a fair guess that she’s gone through these emotions, and has watched me do the same. Anger is normal, natural, and healthy. By and large, I’m at the “acceptance” stage, but in those areas where I think religion has done the most harm, I tend to get very animated.
As I often tell my daughter, “You shouldn’t worry about trying to control your emotions. You will feel them whether you are willing to acknowledge them or not. You can, however, control the actions you take based on those emotions.”
Emil, that’s weasel-language. “It may be true that…” implies some level of doubt. Yes. Wars have been conducted and are today being conducted directly due to religion, or with strong religious overtones. They are also being conducted for secular reasons, but generally at least one side thinks God’s on their side. Usually both.
I’m a little confused, then. Do you mean that you believe the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites as documented in the Old Testament is mis-attributed? That God did not, in fact, tell the children of Israel to destroy these opposing factions, but was invoked as an excuse for men to do what they wanted to anyway? That’s quite a stretch from “as far as it is translated correctly”–a good thing, IMHO!–and bodes well for our ability to get along, if true.
I guess this boils down to a question of how one views ethics and morality. I would rather spend an eternity in Hell because I followed the dictates of my conscience, and did what I considered the right and truthful thing, than spend an eternity in Heaven having violated my integrity in order to do so.
(I’ve been alerted by one Christian associate that this is, in fact, an impossible situation, and I’m simply going to hell no matter what. Guess it sucks to be me. But if they’re right, it sucks to be you, too. And if you’re right, it sucks to be them and it sucks to be me. It’s like I’m living in a bad Joss Whedon episode with plenty of suck to go around no matter who you are.)
To knowingly live a lie like that nearly drove me to suicide. So I submit, yes, it absolutely would matter. Your religion doesn’t make you a better person. It doesn’t make you more patriotic, happy, knowledgeable, or loving. YOU are the one who does that.
People are, by and large, nice to other members of their tribe regardless of religious background. With a bunch of loud, squeaky exceptions in every group to make any generality useless.
Well, at least Boyd K. Packer (for those unfamiliar with the culture, a prominent LDS leader) agrees with you. In a talk given on August 22, 1981, Packer said, “Some things that are true are not very useful.” The context of this statement was that of LDS scholarship, particularly scholarship which exposes the historical truth of the church in an unflattering way.
I reject this assertion. Loving a lie is a recipe for unhappiness. Knowing the full truth of something allows you to make educated decisions about it. The decision may be to remain loyal and loving, but now you’re doing it with your eyes wide open and a fuller grasp of the consequences. The blind approach to love which you seem to recommend, IMHO, leads to tragic and devastating decisions.
Most people appreciate a good friend; many have issues with an assigned “home teacher” friend. Most people appreciate a good education; many do not appreciate weekly indoctrination. Most people appreciate effort put to good use improving the community at large; many find efforts which only benefit those who are in a particular club to be of negligible benefit.
Most people are good, generous, kind people regardless of whatever religion they are in. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps some practices are generally regarded as obnoxious because they actually are? Sure, people are going to be mean from time to time, but this persecuted-martyr vibe you’re giving off gives me the heebie-jeebies.
You dismissed the possibility of “bad stuff” being directly related to a belief in Deity at the start of your bit, so of course this follows as a logical conclusion. I don’t buy into your premise, though, that evil done in the name of religion isn’t the fault of religion. I think man created God in his own image, and since we often stink at getting along with each other, the blame spreads all around very evenly.
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: Snacktrek, n.: The peculiar habit, when searching for a snack, of constantly returning to the refrigerator in hopes that something new will have materialized. — Rich Hall, “Sniglets”
[Not sure how to title this one… ]
An interesting discussion, although I would be one of those who post who does not practice the religion I was brought up in anymore. I was raised in a Roman Catholic Church. I have an understanding of religions and from the reading that I have done and the discussions that I have been in lead me to the same conclusion. I do not believe that there is some all-mighty god who reigns from on high. I do not believe in heaven or hell either. My views on religion are that it was put in place to give people something to believe in when they needed something to cling to. Society as a whole desires to be part of a group (tribe). Religion is common belief system that was put in place hundreds / thousands of years ago. As society evolved, so did its religions. “All paths lead to God” – All of the religions have a common theme. So which is more correct? The one that makes you the happiest. I lead my life in a way that I accept myself and my actions. I have morals which keep me on what I perceive as the “right track
Humanism…
Interesting that you linked that. About two years ago, I started considering myself a Secular Humanist, because the shoe fit. It wasn’t that I started deciding to “believe” the Humanist Manifesto III, it’s that when I read it it resonated with what I had found that I actually believed over a couple of years of hard introspection.
Kind of cool when you figure out a name for what you already are.
Anyway, my only real complaint about Secular Humanism is that most of them tend to be way more liberal than I am 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
my reply to Matthew
Thank you. I’m glad.
My question is, am I causing damage here? I guess that’s a piece of truth I need to know (in the interest of love toward those here).
I wasn’t implying anyone’s doubt but my own, which is based on my own ignorance.
Okay, obviously I can’t make such a blanket statement. I do believe what is written there and I know there are other occasions mentioned in the scriptures in which people were directed by the Lord to end the lives of other people.
So a more accurate statement of what I believe would be: Often when people twist things in the scriptures it can lead to conflicts, even war, partly because they interpret what they read as permission from God. (I believe the same to be true with Muslims and the Qur’an.)
The issue I presented isn’t an issue of violating conscience, the issue was more a priority rating of love towards fellow human beings vs. the pursuit of truth. In my mind that particular type of love (not love of things or ideas etc.) wins out over the pursuit of truth.
Imagine you’re on a some hypothetical quest for a rare bit of truth that no one had ever been able to discover before. You know you’re going to be the one to get through the barriers (whatever they might be) and you’re fired up about it. You’ve made your plans and you know this is your one chance, the only possible window in your lifetime, to make this discovery.
Along the way, you discover a man who needs your help–without it he will die. If you take the time to help him, though, your window of opportunity will be lost.
What would your conscience lead you to do? I don’t think your conscience would allow you to let the man die in favor of arriving at that long-sought-after piece of truth.
Why? Because of your love and concern for your fellow human beings.
If you are specifically referring to me being right, then that ties in with the LDS church being right. And if the LDS church is right, then there is joy for all of us here according to my understanding.
I agree. I don’t think I’ve ever implied otherwise.
emilt
Collateral Damage and More
Not so much anymore. Your first couple of posts were somewhat histrionic, but they’re getting more sedate as you’ve become more comfortable with some of the norms of online communication in a forum like this. I don’t think distress at the results of your posts was the result of malice, just naïveté.
It was your first post, where you said you’d come to our little cafe-booth of cyberspace to do “battle for the lord” that got my dander up! Imagine, if you will, that you’re having a nice dinner in a cheap restaurant with some good friends, and someone you barely knew walked up saying he wanted to do battle with you… it kind of kills the mood 😉
You’re getting it 🙂 Thanks for being willing to modify your approach.
Yeah, that’s a hot-button for me right now. I’m readin the Koran (English version), and passages which approve of cutting off the heads of your enemies and dragging their bodies through the street have me concerned for scriptural literalists.
Eh, I’ve got issues with the semantics you’re using, but not the concept. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I found that Secular Humanism seems to have an approach which matches my outlook. The statement “Humanism and Its Aspirations” says of Humanists that we are “…guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience.” I like that.
I think that presenting a dichotomy between exercising compassion and realizing truth is probably a false dilemma. IMHO an indicator of a well-balanced person is one who excels both at learning and applying knowledge, and working to benefit others. I’ve swung both ways on this, and lately I think I’ve spent too much time learning, and too little time helping. The pendulum swings, never resting at zero until the old clock stops…
For those reading and unfamiliar with it, LDS doctrine is that everybody’s “saved” except the Sons of Perdition and those who, having a sure knowledge of Jesus, turn away from him. It’s just your worthiness that determines your socio-economic strata in the Hereafter. So the whole “faith vs. works” salvation argument is moot against a LDS who knows his doctrine… it’s simply a non-issue.
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. — Pablo Picasso
Heaven vs. Hell
Mr. Barnson, you said:
>>>>I guess this boils down to a question of how one views ethics and morality. I would rather spend an eternity in Hell because I followed the dictates of my conscience, and did what I considered the right and truthful thing, than spend an eternity in Heaven having violated my integrity in order to do so.
Are you kidding me? Have you heard what they’ve said about Hell? There’s fire! And lots of it, and it lasts forever… I’m going to have to be perfectly honest, here (really). If I ever receive proof that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and that Heaven is eternal bliss/pleasure/peace/whatever and Hell is eternal pain/suffering/anguish/whatever, I don’t care how many lies or things that go completely against my conscience I have to believe in order to get to Heaven, I will.
This is because I am a coward and I am afraid of pain. But if God came from out of the sky and told me that if the only way to achieve everlasting salvation was a killing spree, I’d be sorely tempted. Let alone if God came out of the sky and told me to believe in a book that He sent where some of the passages don’t make sense.
Fear is a powerful motivator. And the moment that someone can incontrovertably link “not believing in Jesus” with “eternal hellfire,” I will be the first to fling my hands into the air shouting Hallelujah.
Well
It’s always dangerous to use the word “wrong” in a religious context. Clearly, if your belief in God and your participation in the LDS church give you peace, hope, and joy, then no one could possibly call that “wrong”. Religious belief, because it is unprovable, is by definition unquantifiable. Certain beliefs may be more outlandish than others (I’ve got no great love for Scientology or the Church of All Worlds), but on an empirical level, religious belief is simply a matter of personal choice, and cannot be considered wrong.
That said, there are many paths to finding peace, hope, and joy. Some of them include God, some of them do not. Some find peace in Jesus Christ, some find peace in Buddhist meditation, some find peace in quantifying the universe through scientific exploration. As peace is a personal thing, the method to peace cannot be said to be right or wrong.
(On a side note, it’s also possible for one to have animosity towards certain religious or non-religious beliefs, while still respect the people who hold those beliefs. Disagreement does not equal prejudice.)
As long as religious beliefs do not include disparaging others who hold different beliefs (or worse), I have no problem with them. I may not be a Christian or a Mormon, and I may have theological debates on the comparative probability of such beliefs, but I have no disrespect for you, or anyone who has deeply-held religious beliefs. I hope this helps the discourse.
— Ben
Disagreement!
Amen and Hallelujah! I’ll be frank: I don’t like the LDS church. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that in the minds of regular readers here at barnson.org. However, I love many of the people who are members. Matter of fact, I’m hopelessly in love with one, and plan on remaining that way for the rest of my life. And I have four little kids whom I adore that are being raised as Mormons, and the whole immediate-family thing going on.
What religion you are, really, is just another quirk. Like whether you squeeze the toothpaste tube from the side or from the bottom. Or whether you set up the toilet paper roll to unroll from the front or the back. Or what car you drive.
Now there’s not truth in those things. If you roll the toothpaste from the bottom up, you get more out of the tube. If you set the toilet paper to unroll from the back, it makes it less likely that a two-year-old will successfully unravel the entire roll into the toilet. You’ll get certain mileage out of a given car.
My beef comes when inaccurate claims are made about the merits of one of those things. Which way you squeeze the toothpaste tube doesn’t determine whether or not you’re going to Heaven. Which way you roll the toilet paper doesn’t have anything to do with your worth as a person. The mileage you get from your car is irrelevant to whether the windows of Heaven will open to pour out blessings on you.
And what religion you practice has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not you’re a good person doing good things.
Where’d I leave that soapbox again?
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: It is well known that *things* from undesirable universes are always seeking an entrance into this one, which is the psychic equivalent of handy for the buses and closer to the shops. — Terry Pratchett, “The Light Fantastic”
I think you’re wrong…
Especially in a mosque.
Religious beliefs, at least any that I am aware of, make metaphysical claims. To the extent that any two metaphysical models conflict (e.g. consciousness continues after death vs. consciousness ceases at death), one of those is wrong. There’s no way around it. I agree that religions tend to make arbitrary assertions (e.g. God created the world) which cannot be disproved, but that doesn’t make them immune from error. Especially when those arbitrary assertions are illogical (e.g. God exists outside of time).
So, drugs are okay then? Once again, I think peace must be found in a way consistent with objective reality.
I can’t believe it..
I agree with Daniel on a religious point. :jawdrop:
I do believe in Jesus, people here know this. And I do believe he is the only real God. I do not believe in the LDS church. And I think that there is the issue you have missed, Emil.
Truth is the most important thing. Either I am right on what I believe or I am wrong. If I am wrong, then I need to change what I believe, because I refuse to put my time and heart into something that I know does not exist. This is not a game of “Just believe and maybe you’ll be right”. This is a matter of the question: “Is it historically true.. did it happen.. is there a God up there?”. I say the answer is yes.
I have a bunch of circumstantial historical evidence and a bunch of subjective personal testimony and a bunch of testimony from people I believe, and so none of it is admissable as scientific proof – but in my experience it is more likely that God and Christ exist than that they do not. I think Daniel and Matthew are wrong because they do not accept the testimony and evidence – and I think they believe something that is untrue.
Daniel and Matthew assert that God has not been proven, and cannot, that there are real problems with religion, especially LDS, and that it seems really unlikely that God’s up there, so why waste your time on it? They believe that I’m wrong. That I am praying to a fictional God man created to make me feel better. And they’re right to act as they do if that is what they believe.
To be a “believer” in something you don’t think is true.. it’s not belief, not faith.. its just being a poser. Beyond that, the other stuff is nice, but love and peace and happiness are byproducts and not the goal. The goal of me, and I think of Matthew, of Daniel.. of many here.. is to put their faith where they think the truth is.
So if you do not believe in something, you should not just blindly follow it just so you have peace and then maybe then it will end up being right.
I have this problem when people say they go to Church and follow catholocism even though they don’t believe it, or much of it. They’re not Catholics – they’re just picking and choosing what they like. The big question should be “Is it true” – and then you go with what seems to fit the bill most closely.
Stepping mostly off soapbox
PS (This is why no church should have secrets of any kind from its members and even its non-members. Everything should be done out in the light, above board, and no question should be answered with “its too sacred”, or “its a secret”. Everyone should be shown what you believe to be the truth with no surprises down the road. If its the truth, then it should be plainly shown to anyone who wants to look)
Okay, now off soapbox. Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Well said
Well said, Justin. However, I feel compelled to point out one thought, and you must forgive me because this is a fiddle I’ve played for you a thousand times before, I know. 🙂
>>>>I have this problem when people say they go to Church and follow catholocism even though they don’t believe it, or much of it. They’re not Catholics – they’re just picking and choosing what they like.
Why single out Catholocism for the somewhat dubious honor of having posers? I’ve known Lutherans, Episcopalians, Mormons, Presbyterians, Christadelphians, Non-Demoniational Protestants, Unitarians, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentacostal Charismatics who have gone to a given church every Sunday because it’s what their family did, and it’s what’s ‘the right thing to do,’ even though they don’t believe in it. Strangely, if I had to guess what the ratio of “believers” vs. “practicioners” in a given denomination was, Catholicism would fall pretty squarely in the middle of the pack.
Every religion has its posers.
Also, the “C” in Catholocism should be capitalized, you heretic. Mary sees your crimes and weeps for you.
A notable single-out
There is a Catholic (not you.. you’re so vain, you prob’y think this post is about you, don’t you, don’t you) – and its someone I care a lot about, and heargues that he is TRULY a catholic, but doesn’t believe the bible and doesn’t believe in the pope and doesn’t believe most of it.. but finds the lifestyle fulfilling.. so he calls himself catholic..
the problem i have isnt in the not putting into practice.. but the out and out denying core tenets of the faith and then still calling your self a certian religion..
I’d just as easily say Mormon or Jewish or Hindu.. but in my case, there is a specific individual.
You may be right.. I may be crazy..
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
No true members
I suspect (warning: poorly examined theory follows) that you could divide adherents to an organized religion into one of two groups, neither of which really is a “true” believer: heretics and devouts. I think this makes it hard to talk about the beliefs of any organized religion.
Heretics might admit that they “pick and choose” from the doctrine. They probably apply biblical fundamentalism in the sense that they can find particular scriptures to justify their heretical beliefs, or they use historical analysis to twist meanings to their likings. It’s hard to avoid some inconsistencies in such an approach, but usually the rationalizations are complex enough that the inconsistencies get forgotten. The best way to rile a heretic is to force them to defend why they believe any of it.
Devouts will say they toe the party line, but this is probably more indicative of a lack of introspection. Most religions have some degree of antiquated ideas (about women, for example) or inconsistent ideas (biblical contradictions, etc.) that the devout doesn’t really like to dwell on but that don’t really bother them. The best way to rile a devout (what can I say, I was always more in the heretical camp) is to push them to follow a certain belief to its universally-appied, logical conclusion. (A favorite after God answers a “trivial” prayer, such as to find a pair of car keys, is to ask why God is concerned about your car keys, but not serial child rapists. Maybe the victims aren’t praying with enough faith?)
This is why I have a hard time saying “Mormons” believe this or “Catholics” believe that. Even strongly centralized churches like these have lots of different beliefs among the membership. Many members might even refute the idea that the current leader (President or Pope) “speaks for the church.”
I guess there’s always room for a third category–Ned Flanders. To quote, “I’ve done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!”
Devout Literalist Skeptic
I guess that made me a devout-literalist-heretic when I was religious. I took things literally, and dreamed up really complicated explanations for why they were the way they were. If even the complicated explanation didn’t do the trick, I’d figure that maybe there was a mistake in that one doctrine.
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. — Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)
Devout one-two punch
1) With God all things are possible.
2) We’ll understand after we die.
You can get a lot of mileage out of those babies.
heh
I have seen those bumper stickers too… umm.. yeah.. don’t buy it …
Are all things possible?
Can Jesus heat up a burrito that’s too hot for him to eat?
— Ben
Axiomatic
If in doubt on #1, please refer to #2…
Speaking of dying
Ever read the Isaac Asimov short story about the atheist who dies and finds himself face-to-face with God, and then decides that his job is to spend all eternity figuring out how to destroy Him?
— Ben
OH my…
I have lots of time to think on the couple hours that i spend commuting to and from work.
A thought came to me about this discussion thread. If I am suppose to have faith in something I can not physically prove, then what about Goblins and Zombies ?
🙂 – Just a thought…
jews
“I’d just as easily say Mormon or Jewish or Hindu..”
To be fair, in my experience, most Jews don’t believe any of the religious stuff, and are only in it for the “lifestyle” (or the food). But the Jews are generally so concerned about keeping their numbers up that they don’t care as long as you show up.
— Ben
Not all
The LDS church makes many claims of a physical, non-supernatural nature.
For example: the Book of Mormon claims the existence of nations of millions, horses, steel swords and armour, etc.
Another example: Mormonism claims that a collection of Papyrus “translated” by Joseph Smith in the 1830’s contain the written words of Abraham. They claim a specific transalation, in fact (The Book of Abraham).
These are not the types of faith-based beliefs which are subjective or metaphysical.
There is a knowable truth to those matters. Either those nations/people existed or they didn’t. Either the papyrus was translated correctly or it was not. No faith is required to know it.
I can’t argue with logic and reason against a person’s faith in a living God or whether or not a person has a divine gift of inspiration or if an angel appeared to a person whom I’ve never even met. I can reasonably address some of those issues though, and those issues are the sticking points for me.
Right ‘n’ Wrong
Well, presumably there is a “truth” of what is *really* going on in the universe, and everything else is, by definition, “wrong”.
However, I don’t think religion has anything to do with that (sorry guys).
I think of religion like a Schrödinger’s Cat experiment. Empirically, the cat is either alive or dead, but since you can’t open the box to find out, the cat exists in a state of quantum flux where it is both alive AND dead. Religion is the same. Since it can’t be proven one way or another (and, in my opinion, the TRUTH is probably far beyond our pitiful little human comprehension), there’s no basis upon which to consider one set of beliefs “right” and one set of beliefs “wrong”. So it’s just personal choice.
And since when did logic have anything to do with religion? We’re talking about a dude who apparently created everything – who says he has to live by his own rules?
— Ben
Of course..
Keep in mind, in the metaphor you described.. the cat is in quantum flux to YOU – it is either alive or dead no matter what you think it is.. it is one or the other. The metaphor changes a bit when the cat in the box meows. If you hear the meow and it responds to you, then you know its alive… and even if only half the people get the sense it is alive – the other half will seem silly when they ask for proof without opening the box.
See, that’s the idea.. I believe that God wants us to understand him, and has communicated to us how that can be done.. and the clearest communication came when God becamse a person named Jesus.
Now, thats what I believe.. and I know to others it seems ludicrous.. but again.. the question comes down to “Is Jesus who he said he was?” – “What if what they say is true?” – Now, here’s the deal.. if Jesus was not, then I’m “Wrong” – I believe in a falsehood created by Jesus or by others, and if he is, then we do have an understanding of who God is, because he came down and told us.
So it comes down to that question.. what really happened. Or if you’r enot a Christian, what really happened with Moses, or with Siddhartha, or with Mohommed, or with the primal ooze, or with COrdelia Chase.. but something happened, or nothing did – and what be believe won’t change it.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Nitpick…
Given my study of the Bible and the timelines and authors involved, I think a more balanced question would be “Was Jesus who the authors of the New Testament thought he was?”, along with “Who did the authors of the New Testament think Jesus was?”
Answer the two questions satisfactorily, and you’ve figured out your philosophical question. My answers are “Maybe, but probably not” and “They seem to disagree, depending largely upon how late after Jesus’ death the account was written, and what other source material was used in preparing the account.”
How’s that for a definitive answer? Yar!
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Truth? Or truth?
I think that we’re not disagreeing here. The only difference is that you think that it’s possible to know What Really Happened, and I don’t think it’s possible, or rather, it’s not really important.
This, in my opinion, is the difference between “truth” and “Truth”. The truth is what really happened — Jesus was either the Son of God or he wasn’t, he rose from the dead or he didn’t, God created the earth in 6 days or he didn’t. But the Truth is different — it’s the worldview that fits your personal beliefs and enables you to live in harmony with the world. There is one truth; there are many Truths.
I suspect that you believe that truth and Truth are exactly the same thing, and that may be. Personally, I don’t believe that a God would be so concerned with making sure you pick the right deity or belief system. I don’t believe existence is a huge game show — Heaven if you guess right, Hell if you guess wrong. I believe that what God wants are things like harmony, peace, spiritual fulfillment, etc. etc. There are plenty of Buddhists who have achieved this, many Christians who have not. And the reverse is also true. I personally believe that God is more concerned that you achieve these goals of harmony, peace, etc., and is perfectly happy for you to get to those goals through whichever means appeal to you.
This is why I believe that What Really Happened is not necessarily as important as what gives you peace. I don’t believe that we’re ever going to figure out what’s really going on in the universe (the more we discover, the more questions emerge), and frankly I think that it would be BAD if we ever knew exactly what was going on in the universe – I think that it’s our endless curiosity that makes us so interesting as a species.
And as for that cat, if you and me are in the room together, and you think you hear the cat meow, and I don’t, that may lend you certainty, but it doesn’t make you right. 😉
— Ben
Truth vs truth
Okay, I got you here, and there’s a concensus.. in my case “Truth” is informed by the teachings of Jesus, specifically “Follow Me”. If the “truth” is correct that he was God, then his saying “Follow me” and “I am the only way” would be the “Truth”.
If, on the other hand, he was not, then that “Truth” would cease to be ture, because he would not have the authority to say he was the only way..
Which was my argument to Emil, that this particular philosophy demands you believe the “truth’ of Christ as a prerequisite to believing the “Truth” – and Emil seemed to be implying “Just follow Jesus whether or not you really believe he was God”.
So, yes, good distinction.. oh, and the cat.. It would make me right if the cat was alive in the box – and either way, what ever the cat would be, it would be… Now I’ve got to get ready for Billy joel.. the true lord of 80’s pop-rock.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Nice
It’s so nice when we all get along, isn’t it?
You’ve characterized my argument correctly, and the other thing that I’m saying is that, if your personal Truth (Jesus and all that) gives you peace, harmony, and spiritual fulfillment, it doesn’t technically matter whether it is literally “true”. The fact that it fills your soul is the point.
That may put me closer to emil’s argument than yours, although in my case the argument is more like, “Believe what you like, whether or not it was actually true.”
— Ben
peace and love
Tonight, billy Joel will provide that..
or, on second thought.. eww gross.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
actually
Billy Joel loves you just the way you are.
— Ben
Oh yeah?
Then why is he movin’ out?
Because
Because who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?
— Ben
See, he told me to tell
See, he told me to tell his wife he is trolling atlantis, and he’s still got his hands on the wheel.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Well….
How was it? Still got it? Or was a boozy old has-been?
— Ben
Still got it..
Knew how to work the crowd (MCI Center-sold out) Just nailed the songs vocally, jammed on 3 keyboards, a grand piano (that rotated), guitar, on the mic, and just rocked the house..
A little slow energy to start.. but it got better as time went on.. you just keep going.. “Oh, yeah.. he did that song too..”
Amazing
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Truth is a valuable thing,
And if my rejecting of that faith (and it’s accompanying guilt, shame, and self-loathing) brings me to the same place, how far wrong could I be?
Exactly
Time for a group hug.
— Ben