fundamental suppositions of God that are absurd

[_KevinSim]

Kevin,
The question that is being begged is that there is a god, and that he hears and answers prayers. It is an assumption of your proposed methodology, but it has not been established. The initial premises being; that god exists and that he hears and answers prayers. This premise has not been established, hence the methodology is still an exercise in question begging.

SteelHead, that isn't what begging the question actually means. In order for someone to be begging the question, that someone has to be engaging in circular reasoning, and even though you're correct to point out that I'm assuming (without proof) that there is a God, I am not (nor ever have been) engaging in circular reasoning.

[_KevinSim]

God is the personification of our own individual senses of right and wrong.

This is probably the single truest thing you've ever posted on this board, Kevin, though I'm not convinced you really understand why.

Sethbag, go ahead and educate me!

[_KevinSim]

But the question is not, is Jesus suffering for our sins just? The question is, when we're in the process of tormenting ourselves for our sins, can we believe that Jesus suffered and died for something? And could it be for our sins? And might the fact that He suffered and died for our sins distract us from us tormenting ourselves? Never mind what justice actually requires.

If Jesus' agony can't contribute to an end of our suffering, then what can?

How about the realization that such self-flagellation because one masturbated as a teen or whatever is simply unnecessary in the first place?

There, problem solved. The murder of Jesus completely not necessary.

What helps me sleep at night when I trespass against my neighbor is to realize that I've done so, and to receive that neighbor's forgiveness. I don't also require the "comfort" of knowing that a Palestinian end-times preacher in the year 33 A.D. was tortured and executed by the Romans.

What's needed to cure the self-torment that comes from the Christian teachings re: sin is not more Christianity.

So, Sethbag, you think that without Christianity no people would ever feel guilty about anything? If yes, then I would find that very difficult to believe. Humans are well able to do things they feel guilty about, even without any faith telling them to feel guilty. If no, then Christianity is necessary.

[_KevinSim]

There's nothing circular in starting out with the assumption that a good God exists...

Um, if one bases one's method for determining if God exists on the very premise that God exists, then in fact there is something circular about this.

I never do base my "method for determining if God exists on the very premise that God exists."

Recall this came about in my statement that Moroni's Promise is a circular argument. I stand by that. You can only know if the Book of Mormon is true by following Moroni's Promise if you can trust that Moroni's Promise is in fact a reliable, trustworthy method in the first place. I argue there's no a priori way of knowing this, hence you're stuck having to assert that the Book of Mormon is true in the first place in order to trust that following Moroni's Promise will confirm for you the truth of the Book of Mormon.

And I argue that there is an a priori way of knowing that Moroni's Promise will lead one to knowledge about God. My axioms are that God exists, that God is good, that God wants us to understand God's will, and that God has the power to answer prayer. Given those four axioms, when someone asks God a question, fully prepared to base the whole rest of that someone's life on whatever answer God provides her/him, God knows that if S/He doesn't answer that someone's question, that someone will never have any other way of understanding God's will. God wants that someone to understand God's will, so God will provide that someone with an answer to her/his question.

There; now, have I appealed to the authority of the Book of Mormon anywhere in that reasoning? Not once. So it's not a circular argument.

You mentioned that Moroni's Promise can be assumed to be reliable, because it makes sense. Billions of people on Earth would disagree with you. Are you arguing that it's still true because it makes sense to you? Are you arguing for relative truth then?

Not at all. I believe in absolute truth. I would love an opportunity to discuss the matter with any one of those billions of people, in an attempt to persuade them that Moroni's Promise makes sense.

Euclid did precisely the same thing with his axioms, and nobody in her/his right mind would accuse Euclid of using circular reasoning.

Nobody asserts the absolute truth of Euclid's proofs. The acknowledgement is always that his proofs are valid only assuming his axioms.

Nor do I assert the absolute truth of God's endorsement of the LDS Church. I also acknowledge simply that my proofs are valid only assuming my axioms, one of which (as you'll notice above) is the existence of a good God.

Some axioms are demonstrably more useful to assume than others. I propose to you that Euclid's axioms fall into that category, and that Mormonism's do not.

And I propose the opposite.

[_KevinSim]

That a omnipotent being can not do better is telling.

Maybe God isn't all that omnipotent.

Of course, the Bible calls God omnipotent, but I'm not sure it meant the same thing to that particular book's author as it does to you, SteelHead. And I'd also like to point out that even if the author meant precisely the same thing, this would hardly be the first time the Bible made a statement that didn't reflect reality.

God has power, yes, a lot of power. But what does it even mean to say that God is omnipotent, to say that God has all power? I don't even know what it means. I think God has enough power to be sure that God can preserve forever some good things. That doesn't mean that God has the power to do everything that every critic thinks God should in fact do.

The sensible methodology for an atonement is "you are all forgiven" not "let's kill my kid".

If all God had to do was say, "you are all forgiven," and the problem would be solved, I'm sure God would have said that and solved it. But on the contrary, God realized saying that would do no good at all.

The whole you are fallen, and need our guidance to achieving forgiveness is just someone creating a sickness so they can peddle you the cure.

I think there was plenty of sickness there before anybody ever told any group of people they were fallen. Do you think otherwise?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[_Gunnar]

MG,

What it comes down to is this: As even you seem to acknowledge (at least inadvertently), much of the arguments and rational you are using to defend Mormonism can be and have been used to defend continued belief in virtually anything whatsoever that one dearly wants to believe. There is really no unambiguous criterion or method for determining that the religious belief system to which you subscribe is actually more likely to be true or better than most competing or contrary religious belief systems that exist. There is no justification I am aware of that is even the slightest bit compelling, to me, for concluding that Mormon truth claims are any less the product of human minds and imagination than any other concepts or precepts available to us.

You're right. We are left to determine whether or not what we believe/practice is of God or man. God has promised, however, that His spirit can help us along the way. But we can only determine what that spiritual guidance...if it comes, is for ourselves ...not someone else. Everyone is on a personal path and, in my opinion, God permits if not condones/supports that. Even through the inspiration received to make choices. But just how often and where anyone is receiving inspiration/guidance from God or divine messengers is totally up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. Again, we can only speak for ourselves.

Then you agree that there is no real justification for persuading someone who is happy with their current religion (or lack of religion) and is living a productive, honorable and fulfilling life to convert to Mormonism? If that is your position, I commend you.

Why, then, does it make even a scintilla of difference which, if any, religion one chooses to subscribe or not subscribe to, as long as one respects the rights of others and refrains from abusing and taking unfair advantage of others whose beliefs one doesn't share?

In the world as it is, it doesn't seem to be the prime directive of God that everyone live/learn the "true gospel". So, if that being the case, what is important to God? in my opinion, it's learning moral behavior, wisdom, love, service to others...basic altruism. And everyone, to some extent or another, can do that stuff. Even ex-mormons.

If you are saying that "learning moral behavior, wisdom, love, service to others...basic altruism" is what really matters, not what church we belong to, or even whether we belong to a church at all, I couldn't agree with you more!

Why should anyone conclude that Mormonism is necessarily better or more correct or more likely to be divinely inspired than any other religion, especially in the face of so much clear evidence that much of its truth claims and historical narrative about itself is so highly questionable?

No one should conclude anything other than what they believe is in their best interest...and hopefully what God would call/want them to do. Billy Graham, I would guess, compared Mormonism with his own Evangelical faith and saw Mormonism wanting. He went on to perform a great work in bringing people to Jesus. Was he inspired to do so? One would hope. If you feel God is calling you to do a work...and it is good...go for it.

The point I was trying to make is that no one should feel obligated to take seriously anything that is as highly questionable and deliberately deceptive as Mormon truth claims and historical narrative. I don't agree that one should conclude only what is in one's own, selfish best interest. Bringing people to a belief in the divinity of Jesus is relevant only to the extent that it motivates them to learn and practice "...moral behavior, wisdom, love, service to others...basic altruism." It is possible to learn and practice all that without a belief in God or the divinity of Jesus.

OTOH, if a person simply leaves God in their wake and lives only for themselves and lives an unproductive life with hedonism as their practice/religion...I think that's kind of sad. Lost potential.

Abandoning belief in God does not have to lead to an unproductive, hedonistic life.

Regards,

Gunnar

[_KevinSim]

SteelHead, why do you think they mangled the message?

God wanted men marrying more than one woman. Joseph Smith did such a good job mangling the message that for over 170 years the church wouldn't even admit that he himself did it, and now that they have, all they can point to is how much they simply don't understand about what exactly it was Joseph was up to.

God didn't want black men to hold the priesthood. Or he did, but Brigham Young f****d it up due to the rampant racism of his times. All these years all they can point to is that they just don't get whatever it is that God really wanted in the first place, but they're pretty sure he wants black men holding the priesthood now.

God either created the Earth 7000-10000 years ago, or he didn't, or it came together due to natural forces, or God really did create it, but a long time ago, and he either let the variety of life come together through evolution, or he designed it all that way, either a long time ago, or 7000-10000 years ago, or something else entirely. They still can't get their story straight.

Noah either really saved homo sapiens from a global flood a few thousand years ago, or he saved only his family from a local flood, or his story is a spiritual allegorical expansion on local middle eastern mythology already in existence when Noah's story was written, or something else entirely. They're still not quite sure what.

Either nothing on Earth could die, or reproduce, until Adam fell a few thousand years ago, or nothing inside of a small, localised "Garden of Eden", which may or may not have been near Adam-Ondi-Ahman in present-day Missouri, could die or reproduce, but everything else in the world went on with life as usual, they're really not quite sure what to make of it, except that Adam really was a real person. Or not. Who knows?

Either homosexuality is a choice to live sinfully, or it's an inborn "challenge" some are born with for God to have an opportunity to try them, or it's not inborn because "why would a loving God do that?", but it's still a challenge that comes about somehow, whether it's a choice or not, or something else entirely.

God's vice-regent on Earth, currently Thomas S. Monson, doesn't seem to have a clue. He's not even sure what to make of the scraps of papyrus his predecessor Abraham is supposed to have scribbled the "Book of Abraham" on, whether by his own hand, or only originally but copied onto that specific papyrus by a subsequent scribe, or in fact only hinted at mnemonically by reference to an existing Egyptian funeral rite, or only directly revealed to Joseph Smith as he contemplated the papyrus and prayed. Who knows?

See a trend?

In the natural course of things, people make mistakes, serious mistakes, so serious that they agonize over them, get into a viscous circle of guilt that cripples them. That guilt is bad enough in this life, but it grows even more debilitating in the next life, when people's options are limited; pretty much all they can do is think about their mortal life, and so pretty much all they do is rack themselves with guilt over how they lived their mortal life. And this isn't just an isolated phenomenon; everybody ends up in this viscous circle.

Well, everybody but one. There was one man who lived a sin-free life. But even he ended up suffering for guilt. He suffered incredible pain, but not for his own mistakes; rather he suffered for the mistakes of all people, so that they wouldn't have to.

This is the message, Sethbag. Thomas Monson didn't mangle this message; he's always been spot on when it came to Jesus and Jesus' atonement. Polygamy, the priesthood ban, the creation of the Earth, the Garden of Eden, Noah's flood, and even homosexuality, are all peripheral to that central message.

[_KevinSim]

In fact, I'm not entirely sure anybody's defined God yet; how can a concept have inherent problems when nobody's defined what it means?

And yet you have no problem believing that this undefined concept is real, pinning your hopes for your future on it, coughing up 10% of your income to support its supposed vice-regents on Earth, and training yourself to feel bad when you do all the things these vice-regents claim this undefined concept doesn't want you to do?

Oh, God is defined for me. I'm perfectly happy with the definition of God that I use.

I have to thank you, Kevin, for your participation. I'm currently deployed somewhere in the world with the military, I've been stressed out for weeks now, and when I got home this evening to my computer and its sketchy internet connection, you made it possible for me to relax, take my mind off it all, and just have a good time. I'd dare say you directly contributed to an improvement in my mental well-being by providing such good entertainment. Sir, I salute you, and thanks for all your support!

You're welcome! I'm glad I can help you relax.

[_KevinSim]

How did you come to the idea that some Gods are real? You have admitted to no real evidence, and that you believe only because you don't like the idea of a universe with no God. You have made assumptions from the beginning to end. It's pointless and in the end you believe what ever you like. I suggest Dr. W is being reasonable and not believing things for which there is a major lack of evidence. Why would this assumed Good God not provide him with the necessary knowledge he exists and what he wants?

Kevin believes in God because he doesn't like the alternative, not because he believes in God.
That's like buying a Ford solely because Cadillacs aren't pretty, rather than because he likes Fords.

I'm not sure I understand this metaphor. Bazooka, could you elaborate? You're right that I don't like the alternative to the existence of God, but the only alternative to that alternative is the existence of God. There are many alternatives to Cadillacs, not just Fords.