Religious claims then vs. religious claims now

[_charity]

God has a father who has a father who has a father... this leads nowhere. Even Charity has said it made no sense to think of more than the first level backward on this line.

I did no such thing. I said the human mind cannot conceive of infinity. I said we don't need to consider the generations past what directly affects us.

Please be accurate. Or ask me what I said and meant if you are not sure.

[_ludwigm]

Comment 1

God has a father who has a father who has a father... this leads nowhere. Even Charity has said it made no sense to think of more than the first level backward on this line.

I did no such thing. I said the human mind cannot conceive of infinity. I said we don't need to consider the generations past what directly affects us.
Please be accurate. Or ask me what I said and meant if you are not sure.

Comment 2

1. The status of the concept of the origin of God. Specifically, the concept that God himself was at one time a human being who was born, grew, and existed on a terrestrial planet similar to this one, and who, through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, or the eternal laws of the existence, became a God, and that we are following a similar progression in our own case as mortals. Is it settled, uncontroversial doctrine for most Saints? Is it unofficial doctrine, but yet considered "orthodox" and for all intents and purposes, a fundamental Gospel principle? Is it a theory or speculation?

My opinion. Doctrine. Fundamental Gospel principle. If we go beyond the fact that God once was mortal, we are engaging in speculation.

I have thought I can understand simple english sentences.
Apparently I can't.

[_bcspace]

Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. Many other people actually saw Jesus. First person testimony. You know, the kind that stands up in a court of law.

If someone claimed such things as this today they would be in a psychiatric ward.

The kind of claims J. Smith made would be regarded as the ranting of a mad man today in court. Remember the woman who said God told me to kill my five children. She talked directly to God. Was she believed? Of course she was not.

And if J.Smith were to face radio and television reporters today with his claims, he would be exposed as a fraud.

150 years has made a significant difference on what passes for reliable claim, charity.

The problem with that logic is there are millions of people repeating those types of claims today whom most others don't think eligible for the psychiatric ward.

[_Scottie]

That would make Nehor eligible for the psych ward.

[_JAK]

Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. Many other people actually saw Jesus. First person testimony. You know, the kind that stands up in a court of law.

JAK:If someone claimed such things as this today they would be in a psychiatric ward.

The kind of claims J. Smith made would be regarded as the ranting of a mad man today in court. Remember the woman who said God told me to kill my five children. She talked directly to God. Was she believed? Of course she was not.

And if J.Smith were to face radio and television reporters today with his claims, he would be exposed as a fraud.

150 years has made a significant difference on what passes for reliable claim, charity.

The problem with that logic is there are millions of people repeating those types of claims today whom most others don't think eligible for the psychiatric ward.

Of course there are. Do we have religion today? We do. We have a plethora of religion(s) today. And we will have them longer than any of us will be around to defend reason over religion. Nevertheless, reason is the enemy of religious dogma. That does not mean that reason prevails.

Bush took the USA into war with Iraq on faith based conclusions which nearly all people of reason today recognize was a false conclusion. While reason rejects distortion, it may, for a time, be trumped by power. Bush had the power, but not the reason. He distorted evidence thus contaminating reason.

If those in power insist on an end with the cynical use of pseudostudies known to be false for the purposes of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth, we get such things as the Iraq war or the institutionalization of people like J. Smith and B. Young.

It happens. There is no problem with the logic. There is a problem with those who misrepresent fact for personal or political power. That is ongoing.

JAK

[_JAK]

ludwigm,

You quoted charity thus (below):

Coggins7 wrote:

1. The status of the concept of the origin of God. Specifically, the concept that God himself was at one time a human being who was born, grew, and existed on a terrestrial planet similar to this one, and who, through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, or the eternal laws of the existence, became a God, and that we are following a similar progression in our own case as mortals. Is it settled, uncontroversial doctrine for most Saints? Is it unofficial doctrine, but yet considered "orthodox" and for all intents and purposes, a fundamental Gospel principle? Is it a theory or speculation?

charity wrote:
My opinion. Doctrine. Fundamental Gospel principle. If we go beyond the fact that God once was mortal, we are engaging in speculation.

Principle to apply: Faith based conclusions are unreliable. We have no evidence for God claims.

Suppose we grant the absurd claims of C7.

In what venue/world was God born?
Who were God’s parents?
What was God’s mother like?
What was God’s father like?

The claim is that God was “himself at one time a human being who was born, grew, and existed on a … planet similar to this one…”

C7 misuses the word theory above.

“In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.” (source above)

Now charity argues: “If we go beyond the fact that God once was mortal, we are engaging in speculation.”

JAK:
The claims absent evidence begin with the multiple claims outlined by C7 and are perpetuated by charity.

Evidence and reason are clear enemies of religious dogma. The exchange is a demonstration of that.

Dogma and superstition survive and self-perpetuate only so long as evidence and reason are kept at bay.

Ludwigm, whether you understand simple English sentences, I don’t know. What’s critical to understand here is the clash of reason and religion. They are not compatible.

We also have evidence in the above dialogue (C7 & charity) that many prefer the irrational over reason and reject request for evidence of claims. When dogma and blind faith rush in to fill the vacuum left by reason's departure, they allow for the exercise of new forms of power more arbitrary and less derived from evidence.

Broad social and cultural changes can be traced to Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press. With time, the print revolution broke up the stagnant medieval disinformation monopoly and led to an explosion of knowledge that was disseminated to masses of people who had previously had no access to knowledge that was not transmitted from above by some hierarchy of power, either religious or secular.

However, we must recognize that the ignorance of the past continues to reside in the dogma of religion today. Flushing out such ignorance requires time.

JAK

[_ludwigm]

Thank You, JAK.

You have addressed near all places in the quoted text which I have "problems" with.
My understanding vs. non-understanding was only a rhetorical device. I think, I did understand the sentences and expressions as a grammatical structure. One can assemble sentences which are grammatical correct, meet the requirements of the rules of the language, but make no sense.
Yes, many times, I can not grab the meaning. But what about meaningless combinations of words?

To list a few:
"God himself was at one time a human being ... who, through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel"
- Gospel, before the divine God, when that god was a man as we now?

"the eternal laws of the existence"
- Do such things exist? What are they? Who does knew them? Who did define they?

"the fact that God once was mortal"
- Is this a fact? Can be an eternal entity mortal? (If I don't care the mere existence.)

You approached that word combinations from the direction of claim, evidence, conclusion.
I approach them from the direction of sense and meaning - with the same result.

One can talk about a "flying snail".
If it is a snail, it can't fly. If it can fly, it is not of the class Gastropoda.
The "flying snail" is an empty construction of the language. There is nothing to talking about any more.

[_antishock8]

"I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it." - http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1

There is absolutely no difference between people, and the claims they make, at any given time in human history. With the exception of a smallish minority, it's in our nature to be completely idiotic or complicit in our ignorance. This horrible attribute crosses all ideologies with astouding efficiency.

[_JAK]

Thank You, JAK.

You have addressed near all places in the quoted text which I have "problems" with.
My understanding vs. non-understanding was only a rhetorical device. I think, I did understand the sentences and expressions as a grammatical structure. One can assemble sentences which are grammatical correct, meet the requirements of the rules of the language, but make no sense.
Yes, many times, I can not grab the meaning. But what about meaningless combinations of words?

To list a few:
"God himself was at one time a human being ... who, through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel"
- Gospel, before the divine God, when that god was a man as we now?

"the eternal laws of the existence"
- Do such things exist? What are they? Who does knew them? Who did define they?

"the fact that God once was mortal"
- Is this a fact? Can be an eternal entity mortal? (If I don't care the mere existence.)

You approached that word combinations from the direction of claim, evidence, conclusion.
I approach them from the direction of sense and meaning - with the same result.

One can talk about a "flying snail".
If it is a snail, it can't fly. If it can fly, it is not of the class Gastropoda.
The "flying snail" is an empty construction of the language. There is nothing to talking about any more.

Hi ludwigm,

I quite agree with your comments. And I really did strongly suspect that you understood. Certainly, when one uses the word “fact” in a context where there is no established fact, such a statement should be challenged.

It seems that religious pundits want to make dogmatic statements but do not want questions such as the ones you pose (Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:17 am).
One of several things may happen in response to questions.

The person does not respond at all.
The person gives a non sequitur response ignoring the questions.
The person makes additional assertions as if they were established fact and continues to fail direct address to the questions.

There are perhaps more options, but these are some primary ones.

It’s difficult to bring honest integrity to center stage on bbs such as this. Your comments are most appreciated by me if not by others.

JAK

[_Moniker]

That would make Nehor eligible for the psych ward.

I'd visit him. Regularly. :)