Question for KevinSim- biblical gospel articulation request

[Philo Sofee]

Years ago upon leaving the comfort of atheism …

That’s an interesting statement. Would you explain why atheism was comfortable for you? I’m an atheist, and while I’m certain there’s not a psychopathic god out there doing whatever the Torah/Bible/Quran/Book of Mormon claims it’s doing, it’s not comfortable for me in the least. I have to make peace with annihilation, which is an ongoing process.

- Doc

One of the BIG reasons atheism lost its attraction to me, this assumption that annihilation is the final say so, when, in course of fact, there is no way to know that, so you fear for truly no reason whatsoever. I have no faith in annihilation at all.

[malkie]

That’s an interesting statement. Would you explain why atheism was comfortable for you? I’m an atheist, and while I’m certain there’s not a psychopathic god out there doing whatever the Torah/Bible/Quran/Book of Mormon claims it’s doing, it’s not comfortable for me in the least. I have to make peace with annihilation, which is an ongoing process.

- Doc

One of the BIG reasons atheism lost its attraction to me, this assumption that annihilation is the final say so, when, in course of fact, there is no way to know that, so you fear for truly no reason whatsoever. I have no faith in annihilation at all.

Of course Mormonism replaces that atheistic fear with the fear that if you are not good enough you will lose your family for eternity, and that (speculatively) they will forget all about you so that they can be blissfully happy.

[msnobody]

It seems like the opening post may be a round about way to ask the age-old question, "Are Mormons Christian?" The way I like to explain it is in an analogous question, "Are bananas berries?" Before you chuckle too much, hear me out. By the biological definition, bananas are in fact berries. But if you ask someone if they want a berry and then hand them a banana, they might be upset. The everyday definition is different than the strict biological definition.

By the simplest definition of what it is to be a Christian, yes, no one disagrees that Latter-day Saints consider themselves Cristian. If you ask a Mainstream Christian if they want to go to a Christian church on Sunday and take them to the local LDS ward, they might be upset.

In short, it is a question that can't be answered without digging deeper into comparative theology. It may also require a better understanding of why the individual is asking the question in the first place.

The original post was made as a spinoff from KevinSim’s thread Why Do Biblical Christians Think God does Not Inspire TCoJCoLDS. I was hoping to see if KevinSim understands why Evangelical Christians would see the teachings of the LDS church as opposed to the gospel as understood by EV’s, and why EV Christians would view the GA’s as not being inspired by God.

[IHAQ]

It seems like the opening post may be a round about way to ask the age-old question, "Are Mormons Christian?" The way I like to explain it is in an analogous question, "Are bananas berries?" Before you chuckle too much, hear me out. By the biological definition, bananas are in fact berries. But if you ask someone if they want a berry and then hand them a banana, they might be upset. The everyday definition is different than the strict biological definition.

By the simplest definition of what it is to be a Christian, yes, no one disagrees that Latter-day Saints consider themselves Cristian. If you ask a Mainstream Christian if they want to go to a Christian church on Sunday and take them to the local LDS ward, they might be upset.

In short, it is a question that can't be answered without digging deeper into comparative theology. It may also require a better understanding of why the individual is asking the question in the first place.

The original post was made as a spinoff from KevinSim’s thread Why Do Biblical Christians Think God does Not Inspire TCoJCoLDS. I was hoping to see if KevinSim understands why Evangelical Christians would see the teachings of the LDS church as opposed to the gospel as understood by EV’s, and why EV Christians would view the GA’s as not being inspired by God.

Holland recently made the point that Mormons are the original and only true Christians.

One reason we do not emphasize the cross as a symbol stems from our biblical roots. Because crucifixion was one of the Roman Empire’s most agonizing forms of execution, many early followers of Jesus chose not to highlight that brutal instrument of suffering. The meaning of Christ’s death was certainly central to their faith, but for some 300 years they typically sought to convey their gospel identity through other means.6

By the fourth and fifth centuries, a cross was being introduced as a symbol of generalized Christianity, but ours is not a “generalized Christianity.” Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography.7 In this sense, the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... d?lang=eng

See:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=156346&p=2806132&hi ... n#p2806132

So the question is really, "Is anyone other than Mormons, Christian?"

[Philo Sofee]

Jeff Holland
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.

Since there is not simply an original single Christian beginning or group, this is entirely, fundamentally misguided. We know at the very earliest dating there were dozens of various and variegated groups of peoples of all nationalities and all religious predilections who existed, all more or less peacefully, yet competitive. The true Christian beginnings is much more complex, difficult to nail down than this little mythologem Holland spouts ignorantly. Remember when he confessed he was clueless about how the Book of Abraham was translated? It is time for him to confess his same ignorance of early Christianity.

[dastardly stem]

That’s an interesting statement. Would you explain why atheism was comfortable for you? I’m an atheist, and while I’m certain there’s not a psychopathic god out there doing whatever the Torah/Bible/Quran/Book of Mormon claims it’s doing, it’s not comfortable for me in the least. I have to make peace with annihilation, which is an ongoing process.

- Doc

One of the BIG reasons atheism lost its attraction to me, this assumption that annihilation is the final say so, when, in course of fact, there is no way to know that, so you fear for truly no reason whatsoever. I have no faith in annihilation at all.

I appreciate your honesty, philo. The only reason why I’m an atheist is because I like to try to be reasonable. All we know is we live and die. Anything beyond that is just silly guesswork at this point. Atheism is simply the answer to the question of “do you believe in god?” It may seem to imply annihilation, but that answer says nothing about what happens when we die. The only reason we suggest it does is because believers pretend there is a heaven reserved for them and a hell reserved for unbelievers, apparently satisfying their hope for someone’s pain and anguish.

[Philo Sofee]

One of the BIG reasons atheism lost its attraction to me, this assumption that annihilation is the final say so, when, in course of fact, there is no way to know that, so you fear for truly no reason whatsoever. I have no faith in annihilation at all.

I appreciate your honesty, philo. The only reason why I’m an atheist is because I like to try to be reasonable. All we know is we live and die. Anything beyond that is just silly guesswork at this point. Atheism is simply the answer to the question of “do you believe in god?” It may seem to imply annihilation, but that answer says nothing about what happens when we die. The only reason we suggest it does is because believers pretend there is a heaven reserved for them and a hell reserved for unbelievers, apparently satisfying their hope for someone’s pain and anguish.

Exactly. Atheism offers no hope for justice, whereas religion does. Believers pretend there is a heaven without knowing, and that justice will be served; atheism pretends there is annihilation with no justice for atrocities in this life, literally no hope whatsoever for the vast majority of people. Far too glib and depressing for me.

[Chap]

Exactly. Atheism offers no hope for justice, whereas religion does. Believers pretend there is a heaven without knowing, and that justice will be served; atheism pretends there is annihilation with no justice for atrocities in this life, literally no hope whatsoever for the vast majority of people. Far too glib and depressing for me.

Um, surely the point here is not whether theism or atheism makes you feel good or bad, but which one is true?

I mean, if the universe is a certain way, is it not better to recognise it rather than to pretend that it is something else?

[Philo Sofee]

Exactly. Atheism offers no hope for justice, whereas religion does. Believers pretend there is a heaven without knowing, and that justice will be served; atheism pretends there is annihilation with no justice for atrocities in this life, literally no hope whatsoever for the vast majority of people. Far too glib and depressing for me.

Um, surely the point here is not whether theism or atheism makes you feel good or bad, but which one is true?

I mean, if the universe is a certain way, is it not better to recognise it rather than to pretend that it is something else?

Yes, and no one can say which one is true, since all we have at this point is a mere 5% knowledge (and that changes) of the universe. There can be no final judgment call as to what is true or not with such a meager grasp. We have only 5% understanding IF the universe is anyway at all, surely not the same forever based on such meager grasp of understanding. That would simply be arrogance beyond control for both sides. We all have to say we just don't know. Faith in a God is no more idiotic than atheist faith in the Cosmos working coherently and intelligibly day by day so we can study it with our science. We all have faith of one thing or another, there is no other way.

[dastardly stem]

Exactly. Atheism offers no hope for justice, whereas religion does.

I’m running with the opposite of that. Religion offers condemnation. That to me makes hope on religion not hope at all. As Jesus says many believers will plead to him their belief and he’ll brutally tell them he never knew them. That unfortunately is the hope of religion, particularly the type of hope on offer with our current ideas of religion.

Believers pretend there is a heaven without knowing, and that justice will be served; atheism pretends there is annihilation with no justice for atrocities in this life, literally no hope whatsoever for the vast majority of people. Far too glib and depressing for me.

And it’s a rather bleak misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism represents a position on one question “do you believe in god?” It says nothing about annihilation. It may be when contrasted with our western religions, which all hope for a place of continuous pain, torture, or annihilism. But to think eternal punishment is somehow justice for ignorant mistakes (which is all we could make of human sins) is the epitome of no justice, it seems to me. It’s nothing more than arbitrary condemnation. Hope for those whom god decided to ignore would be no hope at all as I see it.

But the best for humanity is found outside religion. It always will be. It may mean I die and my whole consciousness ends. But based on what we know. That makes sense. It’s simply reality, and accepting it is perhaps the more noble hope. If there is a just god, hoping for someone’s torment is the biggest waste of hope ever, I’d think.