God is evil, or likes it, or enjoys it whatever

[MG 2.0]

dastardly Stem's point went well beyond your truncation of his post. Or maybe you meant you agreed with him when he said this...

Marcus, I think it is possible that Mg chose the portion of Stems comment which made the most sense and fit best with what MG sees as Mormon strength. The rest of Stems comments seems rather dubious. I do not know a reason to think the creator of the universe is an insecure tyrant in need of worship to prop up his ego. I suppose the human imagination might be able to create that image but it is certainly a substantial distance from what traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs has understood. Stem mentions god as wholly other. This is a phrase that is not widespread or based upon standard creeds. Some theologians have experimented with it. I think it is ironic to say because God is wholly unlike us he is like a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship, obviously contradicting the idea that God is unlike humans.

I concur with this.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

dastardly Stem's point went well beyond your truncation of his post. Or maybe you meant you agreed with him when he said this...

Marcus, I think it is possible that Mg chose the portion of Stems comment which made the most sense and fit best with what MG sees as Mormon strength. The rest of Stems comments seems rather dubious. I do not know a reason to think the creator of the universe is an insecure tyrant in need of worship to prop up his ego. I suppose the human imagination might be able to create that image but it is certainly a substantial distance from what traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs has understood. Stem mentions god as wholly other. This is a phrase that is not widespread or based upon standard creeds. Some theologians have experimented with it. I think it is ironic to say because God is wholly unlike us he is like a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship, obviously contradicting the idea that God is unlike humans.

Divine incomprehensiblity is a standard Christian concept. That’s what wholly other refers to. It’s only Mormons who say God is human.

[huckelberry]

Marcus, I think it is possible that Mg chose the portion of Stems comment which made the most sense and fit best with what MG sees as Mormon strength. The rest of Stems comments seems rather dubious. I do not know a reason to think the creator of the universe is an insecure tyrant in need of worship to prop up his ego. I suppose the human imagination might be able to create that image but it is certainly a substantial distance from what traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs has understood. Stem mentions god as wholly other. This is a phrase that is not widespread or based upon standard creeds. Some theologians have experimented with it. I think it is ironic to say because God is wholly unlike us he is like a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship, obviously contradicting the idea that God is unlike humans.

Divine incomprehensiblity is a standard Christian concept. That’s what wholly other refers to. It’s only Mormons who say God is human.

drumdude
I am quite fully aware of the differences. divine incomprehensibility is certainly related to the idea wholly other. An infinite eternal being who or which is the source of the universe is unlike a human being. Of course we do not even approach comprehending such a thing. wholly other doubles down on that observation, perhaps legitimately .

I am not aware of any creeds which use the idea or wording of wholly other.

[drumdude]

Divine incomprehensiblity is a standard Christian concept. That’s what wholly other refers to. It’s only Mormons who say God is human.

drumdude
I am quite fully aware of the differences. divine incomprehensibility is certainly related to the idea wholly other. An infinite eternal being who or which is the source of the universe is unlike a human being. Of course we do not even approach comprehending such a thing. wholly other doubles down on that observation, perhaps legitimately .

I am not aware of any creeds which use the idea or wording of wholly other.

This is another very important distinction between Mormonism and standard Christianity. Standard Christianity typically embraces trained theologians, who are very much like philosophers who seek to do real work in furthering the theology of their religions. Here's one:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essa ... -theology/

The theology of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) evolved over the course of his life but roared through the theological world of the twentieth century like a tsunami, challenging the liberal theological systems that ruled the academy and many churches of his day. At the heart of Barth’s project was nothing less than a radically new way of thinking about God and his relationship with the world: given the qualitative difference between the “wholly other” God and human beings, God has freely decided to take man into his own divine life in a freely willed event of mutual becoming known as the “Christ event.”

Even though these theologians' ideas may not be cannonized, they are still embraced as a legitimate way of thinking about theology. Mormonism, on the other hand, typically opposes trained theologians in favor of decrees from the lay businessmen running the religion.

[huckelberry]

drumdude
I am quite fully aware of the differences. divine incomprehensibility is certainly related to the idea wholly other. An infinite eternal being who or which is the source of the universe is unlike a human being. Of course we do not even approach comprehending such a thing. wholly other doubles down on that observation, perhaps legitimately .

I am not aware of any creeds which use the idea or wording of wholly other.

This is another very important distinction between Mormonism and standard Christianity. Standard Christianity typically embraces trained theologians, who are very much like philosophers who seek to do real work in furthering the theology of their religions. Here's one:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essa ... -theology/

The theology of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) evolved over the course of his life but roared through the theological world of the twentieth century like a tsunami, challenging the liberal theological systems that ruled the academy and many churches of his day. At the heart of Barth’s project was nothing less than a radically new way of thinking about God and his relationship with the world: given the qualitative difference between the “wholly other” God and human beings, God has freely decided to take man into his own divine life in a freely willed event of mutual becoming known as the “Christ event.”

Even though these theologians' ideas may not be cannonized, they are still embraced as a legitimate way of thinking about theology. Mormonism, on the other hand, typically opposes trained theologians in favor of decrees from the lay businessmen running the religion.

drumdude, your article you linked is a bit helpful for getting some idea what Barth is about and his idea of God as wholly other. Reading through the article it turns into a hit piece,Barth does not keep proper inerrancy of scripture and steers clear of fall of Adam as real event. From the standard EV view that means trouble.I have read a couple books about Barth and a small amount of his large amount of writing. I am sympathetic but wary of pretending to any expertise.

The phrase wholly other struck me as generally a modern phrase. I checked google and found reference to Kierkegaard and Barth.

I may generally wish to agree with your comment about the Mormon role of theologians but I find myself thinking that in EV culture various mr money bags can marginalize theologians as well.
///
a late addition,

On second thought power and influence struggles in EV circles are more complicated then certain money folks calling the shots. I really am not informed enough to have a very complete picture. .. In fact I am puzzled.

[dastardly stem]

Marcus, I think it is possible that Mg chose the portion of Stems comment which made the most sense and fit best with what MG sees as Mormon strength. The rest of Stems comments seems rather dubious. I do not know a reason to think the creator of the universe is an insecure tyrant in need of worship to prop up his ego.

Why else for any of this? If God sat with none others in any eternally sublime condition, why create others who are required to worship him eternally if they wish to be saved with him, where they will continue to worship him eternally? I know this is not a nice sounding way to frame it for a believer's perspective but how else can we possibly view it, given a God as the traditional views teach?

I suppose the human imagination might be able to create that image but it is certainly a substantial distance from what traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs has understood. Stem mentions god as wholly other. This is a phrase that is not widespread or based upon standard creeds. Some theologians have experimented with it. I think it is ironic to say because God is wholly unlike us he is like a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship, obviously contradicting the idea that God is unlike humans.

So are you suggesting he is like humans? In what way? Of course humans aren't immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. When traditional views of God are shared it really amounts to describing a nothingness to me by using words that mean very little to anyone other than used as placeholders for mysterious. Apparently the more such descriptions get used the more mysterious he's supposed to be. It sounds to me the traditional views embrace contradictions in God. That's what they seem to like. This contradiction appears to be only one of many.

[dastardly stem]

It seems to me we don't necessarily choose what we think is true.

I’m convinced, at least in my case, this isn’t true. I do appreciate the fact that you used the qualifier ‘think’ rather than ‘know’. Otherwise I think I would agree with you.

Regards,
MG

In what way do you choose to believe what is true? As I see it, we can't help but be convinced by what we think is true. For instance, if you choose to believer your aunt is a cupcake, then you are simply deluding yourself and aren't really choosing to believe anything. You aren't choosing to believe that nonsense, but actually believe she is a person, unless you are completely confused about things. You are convinced she is a person, and really want to think she is a cupcake. But deep down you really believe she is not.

I think in some measure religious beliefs play that same game. A quote I read years ago and used to throw around:

You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

Persig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Sadly, for you, your beliefs are not demonstrable. that's why you must escape the concept of reason and logic, as you categorized them and previously suggested, in order to choose to believe. That language of choosing to believe is fine enough and understandable enough. Technically, though, I don't think we choose what we believe. We're convinced. And often we are convinced of things for bad reasons. In my mind we ought to work through our reasons to uncover a better way to see things...you expressed your rejection of what I think ought to be by being convinced reason and logic is not sufficient to provide reason for your beliefs. To me that is a dead end. And there's not much to work with in terms of conversing about it, other than to try and convince you back to accept reason and logic is all we really have.

[Physics Guy]

I don't think one can choose to believe, in the sense of choosing to be certain (or nearly certain) that something is true.

We can choose to believe, however, in the sense of choosing to focus on one possibility and (at least mostly) ignore the alternatives. One acts, and probably speaks, and most of the time even thinks, as though one were certain that this focus possibility was in fact the case. If the direct question comes up, however, one still recognizes that the preferred possibility isn't really the only one. So it's not a matter of being dishonest about anything. Being honest enough to recognize that different things are possible simply doesn't require giving equal amounts of attention to all of them.

The practical differences between the two senses of "believe"—certainty versus focus—are often going to be insignificant. One can choose to focus on one possibility, however, in circumstances where justified confident knowledge is impossible to obtain.

Just because one can choose to believe, in this sense, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Often it's a bad idea, even if you would like to avoid the anxious condition of conscious uncertainty, because taking other possibilities more seriously would let you achieve some good things, or avoid some bad things, at some well-worthwhile costs. And because sometimes choosing to believe can really bite you, it may be worth trying to avoid it on principle, even in cases where it would be harmless, just to keep one's skeptical muscles well toned for the cases where fixating on one alternative would be dangerous. If you get too good at closing your mind's eye to unwanted possibilities, after all, it can easily become a lazy way to avoid the trouble of real investigation, in favor of mere wishful thinking, in cases where more knowledge actually would be obtainable, with some effort.

Nevertheless I think there can be cases where it does make sense to choose to believe something, in the sense that I've described of deliberately not taking other possibilities seriously. It might be, for example, that in the cases which you choose to ignore, there would be nothing useful for you to do, anyway, while in the case on which you focus, you might be able to do something worthwhile—if you concentrated on it without being distracted by second thoughts.

Reaching conviction—or not—is rational judgement, but investing attention is practical strategy. Sometimes it can pay off, and in that sense be rational, to invest attention out of proportion to apparent probability. Faith can in principle be a virtue like courage. It can get you killed, but it can also let you achieve good things that you otherwise couldn't have done.

Whether any particular choice to believe is a good idea or not—that remains a serious question. I don't think this principle of faith is just carte blanche to choose to believe anything at all and still claim to be acting rationally. There is still plenty to argue; plenty of belief choices are still going to be silly. And rationally choosing to focus on one alternative, while recognizing the other is possible, does not just mean adopting religion. Isaac Asimov offered essentially this defense for his atheism, which he maintained even though he acknowledged that he could not really rule out the existence of God.

[dastardly stem]

I don't think one can choose to believe, in the sense of choosing to be certain (or nearly certain) that something is true.

We can choose to believe, however, in the sense of choosing to focus on one possibility and (at least mostly) ignore the alternatives. One acts, and probably speaks, and most of the time even thinks, as though one were certain that this focus possibility was in fact the case. If the direct question comes up, however, one still recognizes that the preferred possibility isn't really the only one. So it's not a matter of being dishonest about anything. Being honest enough to recognize that different things are possible simply doesn't require giving equal amounts of attention to all of them.

The practical differences between the two senses of "believe"—certainty versus focus—are often going to be insignificant. One can choose to focus on one possibility, however, in circumstances where justified confident knowledge is impossible to obtain.

Just because one can choose to believe, in this sense, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Often it's a bad idea, even if you would like to avoid the anxious condition of conscious uncertainty, because taking other possibilities more seriously would let you achieve some good things, or avoid some bad things, at some well-worthwhile costs. And because sometimes choosing to believe can really bite you, it may be worth trying to avoid it on principle, even in cases where it would be harmless, just to keep one's skeptical muscles well toned for the cases where fixating on one alternative would be dangerous. If you get too good at closing your mind's eye to unwanted possibilities, after all, it can easily become a lazy way to avoid the trouble of real investigation, in favor of mere wishful thinking, in cases where more knowledge actually would be obtainable, with some effort.

Nevertheless I think there can be cases where it does make sense to choose to believe something, in the sense that I've described of deliberately not taking other possibilities seriously. It might be, for example, that in the cases which you choose to ignore, there would be nothing useful for you to do, anyway, while in the case on which you focus, you might be able to do something worthwhile—if you concentrated on it without being distracted by second thoughts.

Reaching conviction—or not—is rational judgement, but investing attention is practical strategy. Sometimes it can pay off, and in that sense be rational, to invest attention out of proportion to apparent probability. Faith can in principle be a virtue like courage. It can get you killed, but it can also let you achieve good things that you otherwise couldn't have done.

Whether any particular choice to believe is a good idea or not—that remains a serious question. I don't think this principle of faith is just carte blanche to choose to believe anything at all and still claim to be acting rationally. There is still plenty to argue; plenty of belief choices are still going to be silly. And rationally choosing to focus on one alternative, while recognizing the other is possible, does not just mean adopting religion. Isaac Asimov offered essentially this defense for his atheism, which he maintained even though he acknowledged that he could not really rule out the existence of God.

I think I'm on board with what you're saying for the most part and it may be I'd quibble a bit with some bits or pieces, but I'm not sure about that. It seems to me in the face of options and we favor one over the others, there are reasons for our favor, perhaps deep inside us. Even if we're faced with believing two options and it's about 50/50 for which one is most reasonable, we'd likely favor one over another...for many reasons. And what we favor may not be our choice at all. Its likely based on factors, convoluted as they may be if we tried to trace them, multiplied deep inside our psyche. Or it could be for simple reasons. Something like I like the letter "D" and that option, as an explanation starts with "D" therefore I favor it. It doesn't hurt to express all of that as choosing it, but I question whether it's really a choice or just a manifestation of our personal desires and wants which happen to build up in us over the course of our lives...or some crap like that.

All the way back in Kindergarten, first day or week of school we were asked to draw a picture of ourselves and then name ourselves with a description which starts with the first letter of our first name. I wanted Daredevil. I knew it was not a good description of me. I was timid and scared for the most part. But I wanted it. My little brother would climb trees and jump from branch to branch like a monkey. He was tagged as the daredevil and that made me jealous. I wanted Daredevil over something more applicable to me, because I wanted others to view me as cool. So I drew a picture of me jumping off a building or some such thing and called myself Daredevil Dave. The school year went on and I chose to believe the picture that got hung up in the classroom. When snow fell, there happened to be a pile of snow right by the school building and as it happened there was a ladder up the side. With kids nearby, i climbed up the ladder to prove my namesake, and jumped landing nicely in the snow pile. As I got dragged off to the principal's office I reveled in looking cool for living up to that which I wanted to be. I have no problem saying I chose to be a daredevil, after all I chose to climb up the ladder and jump, but I'd also say ultimately there were other reasons that drove that belief. Or some such crap.

I suppose I lied to myself in describing myself as daredevil, but as I did, I wanted it, I started to believe it. I did something to prove it. But sure enough, the next time my brother and I were up on the mountain side or swinging on tree branches that kid still went higher and farther than I did. I was a dammed fraud and I knew it.

I doubt that applies very well now, looking back, but, meh...whatever I took a few minutes to type it up. Here it is.

[malkie]

I don't think one can choose to believe, in the sense of choosing to be certain (or nearly certain) that something is true.

We can choose to believe, however, in the sense of choosing to focus on one possibility and (at least mostly) ignore the alternatives. One acts, and probably speaks, and most of the time even thinks, as though one were certain that this focus possibility was in fact the case. If the direct question comes up, however, one still recognizes that the preferred possibility isn't really the only one. So it's not a matter of being dishonest about anything. Being honest enough to recognize that different things are possible simply doesn't require giving equal amounts of attention to all of them.

The practical differences between the two senses of "believe"—certainty versus focus—are often going to be insignificant. One can choose to focus on one possibility, however, in circumstances where justified confident knowledge is impossible to obtain.

Just because one can choose to believe, in this sense, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Often it's a bad idea, even if you would like to avoid the anxious condition of conscious uncertainty, because taking other possibilities more seriously would let you achieve some good things, or avoid some bad things, at some well-worthwhile costs. And because sometimes choosing to believe can really bite you, it may be worth trying to avoid it on principle, even in cases where it would be harmless, just to keep one's skeptical muscles well toned for the cases where fixating on one alternative would be dangerous. If you get too good at closing your mind's eye to unwanted possibilities, after all, it can easily become a lazy way to avoid the trouble of real investigation, in favor of mere wishful thinking, in cases where more knowledge actually would be obtainable, with some effort.

Nevertheless I think there can be cases where it does make sense to choose to believe something, in the sense that I've described of deliberately not taking other possibilities seriously. It might be, for example, that in the cases which you choose to ignore, there would be nothing useful for you to do, anyway, while in the case on which you focus, you might be able to do something worthwhile—if you concentrated on it without being distracted by second thoughts.

Reaching conviction—or not—is rational judgement, but investing attention is practical strategy. Sometimes it can pay off, and in that sense be rational, to invest attention out of proportion to apparent probability. Faith can in principle be a virtue like courage. It can get you killed, but it can also let you achieve good things that you otherwise couldn't have done.

Whether any particular choice to believe is a good idea or not—that remains a serious question. I don't think this principle of faith is just carte blanche to choose to believe anything at all and still claim to be acting rationally. There is still plenty to argue; plenty of belief choices are still going to be silly. And rationally choosing to focus on one alternative, while recognizing the other is possible, does not just mean adopting religion. Isaac Asimov offered essentially this defense for his atheism, which he maintained even though he acknowledged that he could not really rule out the existence of God.

I think I'm on board with what you're saying for the most part and it may be I'd quibble a bit with some bits or pieces, but I'm not sure about that. It seems to me in the face of options and we favor one over the others, there are reasons for our favor, perhaps deep inside us. Even if we're faced with believing two options and it's about 50/50 for which one is most reasonable, we'd likely favor one over another...for many reasons. And what we favor may not be our choice at all. Its likely based on factors, convoluted as they may be if we tried to trace them, multiplied deep inside our psyche. Or it could be for simple reasons. Something like I like the letter "D" and that option, as an explanation starts with "D" therefore I favor it. It doesn't hurt to express all of that as choosing it, but I question whether it's really a choice or just a manifestation of our personal desires and wants which happen to build up in us over the course of our lives...or some crap like that.

All the way back in Kindergarten, first day or week of school we were asked to draw a picture of ourselves and then name ourselves with a description which starts with the first letter of our first name. I wanted Daredevil. I knew it was not a good description of me. I was timid and scared for the most part. But I wanted it. My little brother would climb trees and jump from branch to branch like a monkey. He was tagged as the daredevil and that made me jealous. I wanted Daredevil over something more applicable to me, because I wanted others to view me as cool. So I drew a picture of me jumping off a building or some such thing and called myself Daredevil Dave. The school year went on and I chose to believe the picture that got hung up in the classroom. When snow fell, there happened to be a pile of snow right by the school building and as it happened there was a ladder up the side. With kids nearby, i climbed up the ladder to prove my namesake, and jumped landing nicely in the snow pile. As I got dragged off to the principal's office I reveled in looking cool for living up to that which I wanted to be. I have no problem saying I chose to be a daredevil, after all I chose to climb up the ladder and jump, but I'd also say ultimately there were other reasons that drove that belief. Or some such crap.

I suppose I lied to myself in describing myself as daredevil, but as I did, I wanted it, I started to believe it. I did something to prove it. But sure enough, the next time my brother and I were up on the mountain side or swinging on tree branches that kid still went higher and farther than I did. I was a dammed fraud and I knew it.

I doubt that applies very well now, looking back, but, meh...whatever I took a few minutes to type it up. Here it is.

I choose to believe that your story is an absolutely wonderful illustration of the power of choice in the face of reality.
Well, no - actually I don't - the choice is made for me by my reaction to the story, including the conclusion.