Conscientious Alternative to Mormonism

[_KevinSim]

Someone controlled by conscience who is honest and upright would clearly see those issues for what they are. None of those issues have anything to do with whether God
exists or not so I can only assume you would remain a believer in God. Hence Christianity is a conscientious alternative to Mormonism.

What does Christianity teach about the souls of those that don't accept Jesus' atonement in their lives? What is the eternal fate of those souls?

And what does Christianity teach about the omnipotence of God? I've heard that Christianity teaches that God took us from not existing to existing, that God created us out of nothing. Does Christianity teach that God also has the power to take us from existing to not existing, to cause us to cease to exist?

Mikwut, are you planning on responding to this?

[_lulu]

My conscience demands that I work towards permanent good, good that isn't going to go away when I die, good that's going to have lasting effect.

So:
1. Your conscience
2. that you work towards
3. permanent good, as determined by you?
4. when I die, focus on you and your mortality

are we still on the same page as to what you are saying.

[_KevinSim]

What is the "truth?"

Truth is the answer to that question.

[_KevinSim]

So:
1. Your conscience

Yes.

2. that you work towards

Yes.

3. permanent good, as determined by you?

Definitely not. That'd be pretty foolish, don't you think? I think many people have a good understanding about some good things, but it makes no sense for one person to think that person has all the answers about what is and isn't good.

4. when I die, focus on you and your mortality

Quite the opposite. The focus isn't at all on my mortality. The focus is on good things that will last forever, completely independent of the limited length of my life.

are we still on the same page as to what you are saying.

About half on the same page and half a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. But that's okay; I obviously wasn't very clear when I made the original post.

[_lulu]

3. permanent good, as determined by you?

Definitely not. That'd be pretty foolish, don't you think?

I think it’s extremely foolish, but I don’t know that is not where you are coming from.

I think many people have a good understanding about some good things, but it makes no sense for one person to think that person has all the answers about what is and isn't good.

But ultimately you alone decide what you think is “good.” Someone else doesn’t decide that for you?

4. when I die, focus on you and your mortality

Quite the opposite. The focus isn't at all on my mortality. The focus is on good things that will last forever, completely independent of the limited length of my life.

But who will decide what things are good things and what good things will last forever? You’re not serious that when you act your choices are somehow independent of you?

are we still on the same page as to what you are saying.

About half on the same page and half a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. But that's okay; I obviously wasn't very clear when I made the original post.

I think you were more clear than you think. Are we to 3/4's yet. Thanks for engaging.

[_KevinSim]

(Euthyphro, sorry for taking so long to respond to this; your post kind of got lost in the jumble.)

Kevin, you keep using the word conscientious but I do not think it means what you think it means. Conscientious means being governed by or conforming to the dictates of conscience, not doing the most good that lasts forever.

Yes, but the definition of conscience itself is, according to my dictionary, "a knowledge or sense of right and wrong, with an urge to do right." I say that working toward the goal of some good things lasting forever is the right thing to do.

I'm not saying we shouldn't work toward good short term goals; I'm more than happy with people who do. I'm just saying that we should take some time to contemplate how we might work toward long term goals, to consider that we might owe it to future generations to work toward goals that will help them (and those that come after them) as much or more as they will help us.

I haven't read all eight of the previous pages in this thread, but I'd like to know whether you think I, an agnostic, have a conscience.

Euthyphro, I'm pretty sure that you do have a conscience, and that you have been accomplishing many short term good things due to your own personal "urge to do right." All I'm asking you is, what is the statute of limitations on your urge to do what is right for society? Do you feel an obligation to do things that will help society during your lifetime only? Do you think that your life doesn't need to influence society for good after your death? Do you feel an obligation to make sure life is as good as possible for your children? And perhaps for your grandchildren? But is it possibly the case that you feel no obligation to make sure life is as good as possible for your great grandchildren? At what time does your conscience give you permission to cut off your contributions for the betterment of humanity?

Would it interest you to know that my parting with the church was about a choice between conscience and obedience?

Yes it would. And I am sure it was a "choice between conscience and obedience"; I'm sure your conscience did require you to part with the LDS Church.

But while you were in the Church you were (as far as the Church was concerned) working toward eternal goals. I say that if you really think about it, it's just as important now that you also work toward eternal goals. Again, it's a question of, at what point in the future will your conscience let you cut off your desire to be of assistance to future generations? I really don't see how you can conscientiously cut off that assistance at any future point in time.

I think I'll have a beer and wait for cosmologists and physicists to firm up that grand unified theory, detect a Higgs boson, conjure up some dark matter, build a better quantum computer, develop faster-than-light communication with quantum entanglement, or figure out how to traverse universes in the multiverse. In short it's too soon to solve the great problem of the universe because we don't even really know if there is one.

Euthyphro, the problem with that approach is that people, of this generation and future ones, will also want that beer and want to wait while professionals are trying to find out what great problems there are that might affect the survival of the human race (or the survival of some things the human race considers good anyhow). If we're content with that beer and waiting now, then when do we decide to take action? I say drinking that beer and waiting is a recipe for disaster. If we're content with it, then so will future generations be content with it. The crises will come, and by then it will be too late to do anything about them. Better to spend some time (it doesn't have to be a lot) now trying to figure out now what we can do in the interests of the welfare of future generations. I think our consciences require that.

[_KevinSim]

I think it's extremely foolish, but I don't know that is not where you are coming from.

Where I'm coming from is the LDS background I was raised in. My mother raised me to believe in a good God who loved me.

It seems like when someone gets exposed to criticism of that someone's faith, that someone typically polarizes one way or the other; either s/he refuses to be moved by the criticism and embraces her/his faith even stronger, or else that someone rejects her/his faith completely.

What I'm saying is that maybe the right move is to end up somewhere in the middle, between those two polarized extremes. Maybe the critics are right about some aspects of my faith. So do I abandon my faith entirely, or do I try to find out what good things I can salvage from it? It will probably not surprise you to discover that I chose the latter.

After looking long and hard at the concept of God, I realized that I simply don't need the concept of God as a creator. I also don't need the concept of God as a wrathful judge who's going to determine whether we make it to heaven or to some other place. The thing about God that I found most attractive was God's ability to last forever, and to preserve good things forever.

There's no way in the world I could come up with a replacement for the LDS God by myself. It would be almost certain I would come up with attributes for God that I thought were good, but that in fact weren't. The best way to come up with that replacement idea would be with a community of thinkers, and we'd need some system of near consensus to determine what the attributes of that good God were and weren't.

But ultimately you alone decide what you think is "good." Someone else doesn't decide that for you?

As I stated above, there'd have to be some system of consensus (or near consensus) among the community of thinkers, that would determine what was good and what wasn't.

But who will decide what things are good things and what good things will last forever? You're not serious that when you act your choices are somehow independent of you?

I'm completely serious. I might spearhead this community of thinkers, but I could die the next day and it would still move on toward the goal of determining what would be the characteristics of a good deity, and what would be the things that deity would preserve.

I think you were more clear than you think. Are we to 3/4's yet.

No, we're still at a definite 2/4. My pursuit of a good God and the good things that God will forever preserve, is definitely beyond what a single person can accomplish.

I know that putting together this community of thinkers sounds like a lot of hard work, but what's the conscientious alternative?

Thanks for engaging.

You're welcome!

[_lulu]

but what's the conscientious alternative?

I don't think the conscientious alternative is consensus.

For starters, I'm suggesting that you address the issue of every solution creates a problem.

[_Chap]

...

After looking long and hard at the concept of God, I realized that I simply don't need the concept of God as a creator. I also don't need the concept of God as a wrathful judge who's going to determine whether we make it to heaven or to some other place. The thing about God that I found most attractive was God's ability to last forever, and to preserve good things forever.

There's no way in the world I could come up with a replacement for the LDS God by myself. It would be almost certain I would come up with attributes for God that I thought were good, but that in fact weren't. The best way to come up with that replacement idea would be with a community of thinkers, and we'd need some system of near consensus to determine what the attributes of that good God were and weren't.
...

Please excuse me if I have misunderstood you. But surely the task is not to decide what attributes we personally feel comfortable about a supposed deity possessing (which is the aim your two paragraphs above seem to be based on), but to find a means of determining, in order of priority:

(a) whether any being remotely resembling our idea of a deity exists,

and if so (and of course only if so)

(b) what his attributes actually are.

Both are questions of fact, not of our likes or dislikes, surely? Thus, for instance, it does not matter at all whether or not you 'need' the idea of a deity who is a creator. It matters a great deal whether or not a creator deity exists.

[_KevinSim]

I don't think the conscientious alternative is consensus.

That's why I said near consensus. Consensus is probably unrealistic. But there has to be some way for a group to make decisions without either gridlock or the danger of one person's influence overshadowing the whole process.

For starters, I'm suggesting that you address the issue of every solution creates a problem.

Do I have to shell out my Westley/Buttercup Fire Swamp dialogue again? The fact that every solution may in the past have created a problem does not mean that every solution has to create a problem. All that means is that in finding a solution to this particular problem we have to be very, very careful.