Is God a personal or public matter?

[_Nephi]

Is God something that is determined by the public, a relationship obtained through the group, or is God something determined by the individual, a relationship obtained through personal intro and extrospection.

Personally, I think the ideals that one forms of God are to be made in a personal relationship, and is not something subject to group think or other's interpretation. I find it almost offensive that someone else wants to tell me how to see, view, or think of God. Its almost as offensive as having someone else tell me how to love my wife, or what I should feel for her at any specific time.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hi Nephi, I don't really get offended by it.... but I'm not in your situation.

I think it's a private matter unless you're posting on a bulletin board about it. When you put it in the public sphere you're probably going to get feedback about these sort of matters that potentially could be offensive.

[_JAK]

Is God something that is determined by the public, a relationship obtained through the group, or is God something determined by the individual, a relationship obtained through personal intro and extrospection.

Personally, I think the ideals that one forms of God are to be made in a personal relationship, and is not something subject to group think or other's interpretation. I find it almost offensive that someone else wants to tell me how to see, view, or think of God. Its almost as offensive as having someone else tell me how to love my wife, or what I should feel for her at any specific time.

Nephi said:
I find it almost offensive that someone else wants to tell me how to see, view, or think of God.

Isn’t that just what religious organizations do?
They define God. They issue the doctrines about God.
And they claim to reveal God to people like you.
They are the God-makers.

JAK

[_Nephi]

Hi Nephi, I don't really get offended by it.... but I'm not in your situation.

I think it's a private matter unless you're posting on a bulletin board about it. When you put it in the public sphere you're probably going to get feedback about these sort of matters that potentially could be offensive.

Fair enough, but many times (especially at churches) individuals will tell others how to worship, speak to, or think of God. Very restrictive.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hi Nephi, I don't really get offended by it.... but I'm not in your situation.

I think it's a private matter unless you're posting on a bulletin board about it. When you put it in the public sphere you're probably going to get feedback about these sort of matters that potentially could be offensive.

Fair enough, but many times (especially at churches) individuals will tell others how to worship, speak to, or think of God. Very restrictive.

Oh, well that would be slightly irritating to me I suppose. I'm not in your situation, but can understand how that would be uncomfortable. I think I would just respond that, for you, it is a private matter.

[_JAK]

Hi Nephi, I don't really get offended by it.... but I'm not in your situation.

I think it's a private matter unless you're posting on a bulletin board about it. When you put it in the public sphere you're probably going to get feedback about these sort of matters that potentially could be offensive.

Fair enough, but many times (especially at churches) individuals will tell others how to worship, speak to, or think of God. Very restrictive.

Nephi said:
Fair enough, but many times (especially at churches) individuals will tell others how to worship, speak to, or think of God. Very restrictive.


Of course. Both Christianity and Islam are “very restrictive.” It’s the nature of religious group-think to be in control from the top down. That has been the case from the early emergence of these religions.

The trouble arises when individuals begin to think about what they are told to think (and believe and practice etc.).

Prior to the printing press, there was little “reading” done by the masses. They depended on the scholars of the day to tell them what religious writings meant. However, with the coming of literacy, people began to read for themselves -- not just religious writing but all writing as they were able and as writing (print) became available to them.

That activity was a clear threat to religious dogma-makers. Their control was diminished as people read. It was further diminished as people broke with previous religious traditions and doctrines.

Even so, few religious organizations even today are very democratic. That is, the people are not at liberty to make religious doctrine. Enormous effort is made by most religious organizations of any size to control the message. Literature (to use that word very loosely) is generated to comply with and perpetuate the religious dogmas of the various religious organizations.

It is therefore restrictive.

Church school classes or Sunday school classes generally have specific “literature” that is presented authoritatively to interpret for the people (children first) the sacred scripts of the religious mythology. Of course it’s not really “school” at all. That’s a nice euphemism for indoctrination. It sounds educational and sounds educated.

So, you are correct in your observation. It’s quite in keeping with the top-down control religious groups intend.

JAK

[_mentalgymnast]

The trouble arises when individuals begin to think about what they are told to think (and believe and practice etc.).

Rather than using the word "trouble" I would prefer "challenge". Of course the potential for being troubled is there, and it will probably be one of the initial responses as "individuals begin to think about what they are told to think". As one moves beyond that, however, I think that it then becomes a challenge to resolve the issues/conflicts that arise. It then becomes possible to cease being overly troubled, to some extent, and move forward with some degree of faith/testimony. Fowler's stages of faith and all that. In other words's, moving past the naïvété/simplicity of the "Primary Paradigm" of belief.

Regards,
MG

[_JAK]

The trouble arises when individuals begin to think about what they are told to think (and believe and practice etc.).

Rather than using the word "trouble" I would prefer "challenge". Of course the potential for being troubled is there, and it will probably be one of the initial responses as "individuals begin to think about what they are told to think". As one moves beyond that, however, I think that it then becomes a challenge to resolve the issues/conflicts that arise. It then becomes possible to cease being overly troubled, to some extent, and move forward with some degree of faith/testimony. Fowler's stages of faith and all that. In other words's, moving past the naïvété/simplicity of the "Primary Paradigm" of belief.

Regards,
MG

MG said:
Rather than using the word "trouble" I would prefer "challenge".


That’s a good word. From the perspective of the Christian myth-makers, it was trouble. Dissenters challenged the prevailing mythology with information, accumulating knowledge, and discovery. So it was trouble in the establishment(s).

MG said:
Of course the potential for being troubled is there, and it will probably be one of the initial responses as "individuals begin to think about what they are told to think".

Yes, but only if the do begin to think about what they are told. Many (that I know) just do not think.

MG said:
As one moves beyond that, however, I think that it then becomes a challenge to resolve the issues/conflicts that arise.

Maybe - maybe not. As conventions of present culture/society/civilization focus more and more on rational thinking which necessarily involves evidence and clarity of information, it religious mythologies become less and less relevant.

MG said:
It then becomes possible to cease being overly troubled, to some extent, and move forward with some degree of faith/testimony.

I don’t know what you mean by the statement.

MG said:
Fowler's stages of faith and all that. In other words's, moving past the naïvété/simplicity of the "Primary Paradigm" of belief.

Some regard Fowler’s stages as insight. They generate controversy and response from religious circles.

JAK

[_Mercury]

Here's the thing. Ones relationship to what "god" is becomes interpersonal once you tell others that they must change because of ones own relationship with an imaginary friend.

Josephs "god" told him to sleep with other mens wives, destroy printing presses, etc. Therefore ones relationship with god depends on how stupid the voices in your head are.

[_Mercury]

Hi Nephi, I don't really get offended by it.... but I'm not in your situation.

I think it's a private matter unless you're posting on a bulletin board about it. When you put it in the public sphere you're probably going to get feedback about these sort of matters that potentially could be offensive.

Fair enough, but many times (especially at churches) individuals will tell others how to worship, speak to, or think of God. Very restrictive.

if you feel this way then why do you participate in Mormonism or any organized religion for that matter?

Once again your opinions on religion are in conflict with participation in the LDS church.