Reminiscing

[_karl61]

thanks for the scripture on charity.

[_honorentheos]

There is no difference in tone between the Old Testament and New Testament.

The woman taken in adultery is a good example. The Old Testament is clear about what to do with adulterers. Jesus, however, had mercy on her and taught the principle of repentance. Nope, no difference in tone whatsoever.

Perfect example, Runtu. Well said.

[_honorentheos]

thanks for the scripture on charity.

That particular scripture formed the foundation of my thinking for a long time. If we all see as through a glass, darkly, and if the greatest of the three is charity, what did this tell me?

The section about speaking, thinking, and understanding as a child also had a lot of meaning for me.

In general, it was very moving in a quiet way, and still is. Tonight it reminds me of how easy it is to forget to be charitable. So thank you for reminding me of why I focused on it!

[_honorentheos]

Another post in this coversation, which is interesting to me. I wonder when I transitioned from seeing religion mostly as "good", to just another institution and one which could be replaced with secular ones? I'm not sure.

..............................................

"Hey (Friend)

You should patent the phrase, "at faith-value". I like it.

Interestingly, my understanding is that Buddhist philosophy emphasizes the best way to gain knowledge is first from experience, then observation and thought, and lastly from "scriptural" or canonical text. It is almost the exact opposite of the typical western view where dogma comes first, and should inform your observations and thoughts, and tell you if your own experiences have value or are "of the devil". But that was almost a story, so I'll leave it at that.

As for charity and agnosticism, I guess I have reached a point where I see religion as probably being man made, but perhaps divinely inspired. I don't think there is a "true" church, whatever that means. (Which is actually an interesting question. What does it mean to be "true"?) So I look for the good in all religions and try to do the best I can.

For a while I wondered if religion was actually bad, but after looking at humanity and how easily we turn to animals without something to inform our ethics, I think religion might be the glue that holds human civilizations and societies together. Because of this, I think that the need for good and religion is maybe inevitable. Like the good in American politics and the ideals we hold out to the world is worth the evil we certainly do. But it doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to the evil. We work towards making it better.

And that brings me to why an agnostic cares about "church history". Simply put, because I feel like you regarding being lied to about things, only I see the church as being one of the parties that does the lying. Maybe not horrifically, with Pres. Hinckley and the quorum of the 12 sitting around a big table with everyone's tithing money laughing, and winking about how they pulled one over on everyone. But more like cultural inertia. We deny the historical facts because we see the good the church does, but can not rectify it with the past. So we turn a blind eye to it and "go along for the ride". I don't think this is what is right. But I am not out to destroy anyone's testimonies. And I read the stuff mainly because I am an agnostic. If I had any certitude, I would think I already knew and wouldn't need to know more. Basically, I was raised LDS and have its cultural so firmly ingrained in my mind and being that I have to either play along, which I can not; leave it all behind, which might be the result; or look to distill the truth, the entire truth of good and bad, and make something out of it that is honest and healthy. That is what I would prefer. So I dig out the bad, because it is bad, and try to cultivate the good. But I see more and more that it might be a fools errand, or I lose hope of finding others on the same path. Oh well.

Anyway, until next time.