KevinSim wrote: If believing God lives and that God has chosen Monson as His spokesman to the world is really such a bad idea, then what should people with a conscience do instead?
I may sound like Ed Decker, but I am not. Spend some time exploring the options, and come to the realization that if the devil is the father of lies, that Mormonism is of the devil. Then seek a better God. Which also means that giving of your excess to charity is the right thing to do.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
sock puppet wrote:I think a conscientious alternative, for example, would be to give 10% of your increase to help feed and cloth people in need, rather than to the Mall Builders that inhabit the COB.
What's interesting to me is that there's a lot of theological truth in what our nonreligious friends are saying. However, it seems reasonable to me that if one wants to love, why not know Love.
Hoops wrote:What's interesting to me is that there's a lot of theological truth in what our nonreligious friends are saying. However, it seems reasonable to me that if one wants to love, why not know Love.
Is it possible to be a Christian if one strives to follow the humanitarian example of Christ while rejecting the supernatural elements of the Christ myth?
s it possible to be a Christian if one strives to follow the humanitarian example of Christ while rejecting the supernatural elements of the Christ myth?
For some, following the first leads to believing the second.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
KevinSim wrote:I've read posts by a lot of people who scoff at the idea that anyone in their right mind would take seriously the claims of the LDS Church. If the LDS Church really is so bad, then what is the conscientious alternative to it?
I don't see the connection between your two sentences here. These claims of the LDS church being obviously not true do not make the bad, just wrong.
If believing God lives and that God has chosen Monson as His spokesman to the world is really such a bad idea, then what should people with a conscience do instead?
Is there something people with a conscience should do other then discard beliefs they see are not true? There are lots of things one can do, and many of the LDS are doing that have nothing to do with untrue LDS religious claims.
s it possible to be a Christian if one strives to follow the humanitarian example of Christ while rejecting the supernatural elements of the Christ myth?
For some, following the first leads to believing the second.
I'm sure that is true, but it also appears that more Christians are discarding some of the supernatural aspects of Christianity.
I agree with Hoops' observation. The majority of the posts that call for a godless life that simply mirrors the same words of a believer is to me unwarranted. That is the reason Nietzsche called G.Eliot and others English flat-heads. He was referring to those that reject theism but hold strong to a sense of morality and duty - and she argued as do those here that religion actually dilutes morality. Nietzsche told them, "They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality" “Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities” "There are no moral facts." He was flaggergasted at the arrogance of those that can sneer at the "idea that anyone in their right mind would take seriously the claims of the LDS Church." but then cling to an even greater man made illusion with such adherence.
Also the OP clearly indicated the following, "If believing God lives...." and "then what should people with a conscience do instead?"
The author of the OP can surely correct me but by the second quote I understand one who accepts the dictates of conscience as not mere illusion and social creation. The same lords that determined that God didn't create us also surely should recognize we created him and the laws we once attributed to him.
Therefore, if one comes to the understanding that the truth claims (i.e. Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc..) of Mormonism are not warranted one should recognize that God has not been yet put to the equation - only an organization has. Someone with a conscience should then continue to follow it and the promptings of God that are undefiled by the facts of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Recognize one has no more rejected God by rejecting J.S. then rejecting the promises of Amway to make you rich in a few months.
One with a conscious should look close at things like Polygamy Porter's "apathetic atheist" sported by those who also show the opposite of apathy when engaging the questiion in life and message boards. And continually seek for the perfect label of disbelief. It is a cowards way. Why would someone who doesn't give a damn be listened to anyway? That is the same as simply saying the question isn't worth asking. It is the height of stupidity for those that do care and do have a conscience whether they end up believing in God or not.
Or Nomomo's "Simply try to do right because it's the right thing to do." What does that even mean? In a Godless universe we all simply a priori know what he is talking about by "right"? If it were only that easy for those with a conscience.
Or Steelhead's poetic, "Love your family. Be excellent to those around you. Maximize each day. Love, laugh, live free." As if it is somehow axiomatic that Mormons (of whom I do not self identify anymore) cannot fully participate in?
Or conscientiously adhere to Stak's, "A robust and thoughtful atheism, buttressed with an understanding in history, philosophy, the social and natural sciences." What is a robust and thoughtful atheism? Possibly he simply means believe what I do. But does that mean remain open to God, reject God, await for a predefined evidential standard for God to reveal himself to you. Why is atheism follow your conscience? And why should atheism be the glasses to view history, philosophy and the social and natural sciences to those with a conscience?
I agree with Lucretia, "If you truly have a conscience, you can trust it as a guide in this life." And if your do that, If you accept a conscience as reliable you have a priori rejected the Humean history that is recommended by many here for you to follow. You have accepted that the same makings and marks of reliability found in your reasoning that would lead you to question Joseph and Mormonism are indicated in your conscience also and their offerings sprung from the same well. Truth is not limited but broadened by following your conscience - Truth at all costs is the alternative.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
mikwut wrote: Or Nomomo's "Simply try to do right because it's the right thing to do." What does that even mean? In a Godless universe we all simply a priori know what he is talking about by "right"? If it were only that easy for those with a conscience.
People define what is right, and we do not always agree, but humans tend to have a number of things that are essentially universally agreed upon as to what is right. Even the universe that has God still has groups disagreeing on what is right or moral. The only difference in a Godless universe is that they are at least attributing the idea or right to people instead of God.
Spend some time exploring the options, and come to the realization that if the devil is the father of lies, that Mormonism is of the devil. Then seek a better God.