The Nehor wrote:God then is a very demanding cop-out. So much so that I think life would be easier if he weren't there.
To some extent you're right, if you're thinking in terms of dos and don'ts. But I think it's actually easier to live a life grounded in some idea of God telling you what to do. You don't have to worry about what's right and wrong because you have someone external telling you how to make choices. It's an awful lot harder to figure out what is right and wrong, not because some God said so, but because things are actually right and wrong. And then once you figure that out, you live by that moral compass without any expectation of reward.
Except that God first makes you figure it out and then helps you out if you got it wrong. Then sometimes he tells you to use your best judgment. I'm not referring to general Church commandments either. Those aren't hard to figure out at all. It's the nitty gritty of real life that gets hard.
If there was no God I could sweat it less as my goal would be to be a reasonably good and moral human. Instead I'm told to become a God. A bit harder.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:God then is a very demanding cop-out. So much so that I think life would be easier if he weren't there.
To some extent you're right, if you're thinking in terms of dos and don'ts. But I think it's actually easier to live a life grounded in some idea of God telling you what to do. You don't have to worry about what's right and wrong because you have someone external telling you how to make choices. It's an awful lot harder to figure out what is right and wrong, not because some God said so, but because things are actually right and wrong. And then once you figure that out, you live by that moral compass without any expectation of reward.
Except that God first makes you figure it out and then helps you out if you got it wrong. Then sometimes he tells you to use your best judgment. I'm not referring to general Church commandments either. Those aren't hard to figure out at all. It's the nitty gritty of real life that gets hard.
If there was no God I could sweat it less as my goal would be to be a reasonably good and moral human. Instead I'm told to become a God. A bit harder.
I imagine it's more about a person trying to live up to their own belief system (whether it be ethics or a God based morality) then anything to do with religion. There are some awful people that are Godless and some real assholes that proclaim a savior.
My problem with some aspects of sin based morality is that it just seems so pointless at times. If it neither harms you or others, and it's more about denying pleasure, what it the point?
The Nehor wrote:God then is a very demanding cop-out. So much so that I sometimes think life would be easier if he weren't there.
I wonder if nothingness is easier. After all, 2 Nephi 2 states that without God there would be nothing--neither things to act nor to be acted upon.
I don't even know where to begin with the question, "Should God have created me?"
C.S. Lewis had something to say about the difficulty of religion. He asked, "Is Christianity hard or easy?" His conclusion was that it is both. He also believed that to find total peace Christianity is the only option. His reasoning is that we have desires we want fulfilled. Here he refers to the negative ones: pride (in the scriptural sense), lust for power, egomania, lust for flesh, etc. We also have a part of us that desires to be good. We can try to walk a middle road but then at least one and probably both demand more. Christ offers to kill our negative self.
In the long term one side has to win or we are eternally in conflict. I think it is harder for humanity to see this because people die and we don't see the fight carried to it's conclusion or fought indecisively with themselves for millenia.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Church education and the ID debate are separate issues. ID simply isn't science. If ID had merit, then equal time would have its place.
This is scientistic propaganda, and is nothing more that a debate avoidance tactic.
No, it's more of a summary of a conclusion reached after a lot of thought and debate. See Moniker's thread. I don't simply dismiss ID. I think it might have merit in the future. It simply doesn't have merit at this time. Perhaps I should have been more clear in stating ID simply isn't science at this point in time. If the time comes that ID has merit, then it should be given its place in science classes.
Pointing out the holes and inconsistencies is quite sufficient
I agree with you there. I simply don't think ID currently has any holes to point out. It can point to abiogenesis, but that is not yet a part of science as far as I can tell. However, a criticism of evolution does not mean that a designer did it. Science requires more evidence than just "we can't think of any other way". Science requires predictions. Perhaps the ID movement will come up with a hypothesis that makes predictions and have those predictions validated. If it does, then ID will become science. At this time, however, this has not occurred.
For more debate on the matter, please take it to Moniker's thread on Ben Stein's movie.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Coggins7 wrote: The best ID theory doesn't want to destroy evolutionary theory, just bring its head out of the clouds.
Huh. Can you go into more detail in the Ben Stein thread? I'd love to hear you muse on the theory of evolution being in the clouds vs where ID is.
Evolutionary theory has traditionally been invoked as an explanation for the origin of organic life on earth, its development, the development of consciousness, mind, and intelligence, and from hence, all human civilization.
Evolution, at its best, explains the origin and development of species, at which point its explanatory power ceases. Any claims for evolution beyond a mechanical, cause and effect explanatory framework delineating the empirically ascertainable developmental dynamics of biological life is scientism, which is a religion in its own right and who's head is in the clouds along with all other forms of scientistic metaphysical assumption masquerading as the conclusions of science.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote: The best ID theory doesn't want to destroy evolutionary theory, just bring its head out of the clouds.
Huh. Can you go into more detail in the Ben Stein thread? I'd love to hear you muse on the theory of evolution being in the clouds vs where ID is.
Evolutionary theory has traditionally been invoked as an explanation for the origin of organic life on earth, its development, the development of consciousness, mind, and intelligence, and from hence, all human civilization.
Evolution, at its best, explains the origin and development of species, at which point its explanatory power ceases. Any claims for evolution beyond a mechanical, cause and effect explanatory framework delineating the empirically ascertainable developmental dynamics of biological life is scientism, which is a religion in its own right and who's head is in the clouds along with all other forms of scientistic metaphysical assumption masquerading as the conclusions of science.
I'll move it for you. I hate to be ugly... but asbestosman and I both mentioned for you to move it over to the other thread. That way it would have a wider audience for those interested and better debate.
solomarineris wrote:Can I include recreational sex? Or does sound too explicit?
Why not?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo