On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:16:17 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> OK.  When I talk of "The Church" (or "The Union"), I'm speaking of the
> organization, and not the individuals that comprise it (even as a
> group).

Well, in that case it's completely ridiculous to say the Church 'says" 
anything as it does not have a mouth nor a voice independent of its 
membership or leadership.

By that same logic, the US government has no stand on Iran, genocide, or 
other things because the US government is a non-sentient entity.  What 
the President or members of congress (or the judiciary) say about issues 
doesn't reflect the beliefs of the branches of government they represent 
because the branches cannot express their positions as they are non-
sentient.

The reality is that an organization takes a stand on an issue when either 
the leadership takes a stand or the membership (in large enough numbers) 
all moves in the same direction on the issue.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:59:48 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Maybe not a sin, but it seems to be a prohibition nonetheless.  Maybe
>> "Utah Mormons" are different in that regard, though (I have heard that
>> from various people, including those members of the church both inside
>> and outside of Utah).
> 
> "Utah Mormons" are the scourge of the Church, and a detriment to
> society.  They are both more judgmental and less forgiving than members
> of the Church in virtually any other part of the world.

I also don't find that to be the case.  In fact, many of my friends who 
are members of the Church here in Utah are more open-minded than some 
I've encountered out of state.  I don't know what mission work is like 
for those who are outside Utah, but I know many of the people I work with 
(and their kids who are now of the age to go on their missions) do a fair 
amount of service work instead of just "spreading the word".

> They also tend to have lower IQs, from my experience with them.

Well, I have found that to not be the case.  But whatever happened to 
judgment being reserved for God? ;-)

At the same time, I'd point out that the Church leadership is also made 
up (it seems) exclusively of Utah Mormons.....so that also doesn't speak 
well of the Church as a whole. ;-)

>> "Here's what we do, but you do what you like" isn't really giving
>> people a choice.  I wonder if one's temple recommend would be rescinded
>> (I don't know a lot about this aspect of the church) if one said "yes,
>> I drink Mountain Dew regularly".
> 
> No, it would not.  Now, if you drank Coffee or Tea, then yes.

Interesting.  Of course, it also seemed quite interesting to me that part 
of the prohibition on caffeine seemed to be lifted when Coca-Cola opened 
a bottling plant here in SLC.  The plant is now closed (I believe).  But 
Diet Coke is very, very popular here.

>> See, there's the problem.  "Blacks are equal, but only at some date in
>> the future".  That doesn't work for me any more than "All men are
>> created equal" does in the historical context of "men" being "white
>> males who own property".
> 
> I never claimed it was accurate, only that it was what the Mormons
> believe.  Besides, for a somewhat conservative religion springing out of
> 19th century revivalism, it seems quite progressive.
>
> That the world eventually caught up and passed them isn't their fault.
> After all, they were waiting for God to say, "When."

Progressive, perhaps, but as I said elsewhere the timing is just too 
convenient for my tastes.

>> No, it's not.  Recent research suggests that (a) it's more natural than
>> some people want to believe, and (b) that it's genetic and not a
>> learned trait.
> 
> That's more in line with the research I've seen as well.

It'll be interesting to observe how this plays out and at what point we 
start hearing "well, Gays are equal, but it hadn't been revealed to us 
when that would happen".  From the outside looking in, there seems to be 
a fair amount of revisionist history in the Church.  As you've studied it 
and are apparently a former member, I wonder what your perspective on 
that is?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:14:21 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> (In fact, members are frequently reminded to continue asking God if
> everything they've heard recently in Church is true, and if they should
> accept it).

That's interesting - so if the member doesn't accept something and starts 
to try to explain to others why they don't, then the church leadership 
"comes down on them" if they teach their alternative view or preach it 
from the pulpit?

That "threat" of being booted out of the church for trying to promote an 
alternative view seems to run counter to the "reminder" you describe 
above.  I might even think it is more likely that it's a way to get 
people to try to integrate the teachings of their church leadership into 
what they've already been taught, rather than to promote challenging the 
ideas.

Since the consequence of not accepting what they've heard in the Church 
is true and then speaking out when they reach the conclusion that it 
isn't is to be excommunicated or removed from their position (BYU 
professorship or other position in the Church).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:11:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> How many BYU professors (for
>> example) have been dismissed for being seen to be challenging the
>> Church's authority?
> 
> That's actually an instance where I would side with the Church.
> 
> BYU is a privately funded university, and the Church has a vested
> interest in keeping tabs on what, exactly, is taught there.  I'd expect
> them to be hard on professors that don't toe the line, just like I would
> a private school run by Jehovah's Witnesses, or Jesuits, or any other
> religious group.

Well, I would agree as well, but I would also think that as a place of 
higher education, they should also lose their accreditation in areas 
where that has happened.  For example (not that this has happened), if 
the Church decides that creationism should be taught as a science, sure, 
they're welcome to do that.  But the accrediting body has the right (and 
quite possibly the obligation) to pull their accreditation for teaching 
science since creationism isn't a scientific area of study, but a 
religious one.

> It's not like they're using state funds to run the place.  If you don't
> like what they teach, then don't go there - go to University of Utah
> instead, which is a public university.

Well, my wife did go there - Church members get a deep discount on 
tuition, and as an accredited University, it opens doors.  The leader of 
the team that created NetWare (Drew Major) graduated from the Computer 
Science program at BYU, in fact.  My stepson goes to the UofU.

As an interesting side note, it just occurred to me (because you said 
they don't take state funding) that it's ironic that very large segments 
of the membership think that Obama is a socialist (I've heard some at 
work state that they believe that), but they pay their 10% income tithe 
regularly in order to support the Church's outreach programs, to help the 
poor, and to help lower the cost of tuition a their school.  It seems 
that that is just a bit more socialist than they claim Obama is.

I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended

"Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites to 
marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support "traditional 
marriage."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:14:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended
> 
> "Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites to
> marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support "traditional
> marriage."

Yeah, agreed with that.  It strikes me that those who defend so-called 
"traditional marriage" don't really know what traditional marriage is.  
They've co-opted the term to mean "one man and one woman", but that's 
actually a relatively recent thing when it comes to the history of 
humanity, from what I've read on the subject.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> As an interesting side note, it just occurred to me (because you said 
> they don't take state funding) that it's ironic that very large segments 
> of the membership think that Obama is a socialist (I've heard some at 
> work state that they believe that), but they pay their 10% income tithe 
> regularly in order to support the Church's outreach programs, to help the 
> poor, and to help lower the cost of tuition a their school.  It seems 
> that that is just a bit more socialist than they claim Obama is.
> 
> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
> 
> Jim

Religious people are never against religious socialism, just secular 
government socialism. Why? Because the later they equate with Soviet 
Russia, China, North Korea, and other places where "socialist" doesn't 
mean, "We all share and share alike", but rather, "You share what I tell 
you to, or I shoot you!" Mind... one could argue that this isn't much 
different than what churches have done throughout history, or the 
political maneuvering they do now, just without the ability to simply 
shoot people that disagree. Basically, if the state wanted to give every 
child a laptop, that would be bad, because the state is "forcing" them 
to receive laptops, and using our money to do it. If the church wanted 
to do the same thing, it would be a "good thing (tm)", instead. What 
disgusts me is cases where its not a laptop, but, "A few crackers and 
some free milk, so that the local poor kids get at least one half assed 
meal that isn't from McDonalds." That is also "bad", if the state does 
it, instead of a church group. (This literally happened a few years back.)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> It wasn't until later that "both" fell out of favor. And the polygamy 
>> mainly because more liberal groups,
> 
> It had nothing to do with falling out of favor (see my reply to Jim on 
> popular opinion) or because of liberal groups within the Church.
> 
> The practice of Polygamy was halted because the President at the time 
> (Wilford Woodruff, I believe) said that God told him it was time to stop.
> 
Snort. Yeah, well.. Try that today, if it was still as common as it was, 
and they would be calling the man a god hating atheist liberal, no 
matter what his position was. But, your probably right. Liberal groups 
in churches don't change policies, they just lend undue support to the 
ones that *do* support the policy, until such a time as the people 
supporting it die off, and are replaced by people that support the new 
order of things.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:22:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Religious people are never against religious socialism, just secular
> government socialism. Why? Because the later they equate with Soviet
> Russia, China, North Korea, and other places [...]

That's quite possibly true, though it's interesting to me that there's a 
required 10% tithe in the LDS church (if you want to stay in good 
standing) that goes to funding the sorts of things I mentioned earlier - 
BYU tuition reductions, stocking the Bishops' storehouses, etc, etc, 
etc.  

The difference between "religious socialism" (I like that term) and 
"government socialism" is that the latter has control over your life in 
the here and now.  The former?  Well, that's just your eternal soul we're 
talking about - so doing it at that point is good for your eternal 
existence.  But as for taking care of people in the current existence, 
eh, screw 'em. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> It'll be interesting to observe how this plays out and at what point we 
> start hearing "well, Gays are equal, but it hadn't been revealed to us 
> when that would happen".  From the outside looking in, there seems to be 
> a fair amount of revisionist history in the Church.  As you've studied it 
> and are apparently a former member, I wonder what your perspective on 
> that is?

I can see how you view it as revisionist, and it certainly can appear to 
be that way.  However, there are some subtle distinctions between 
allowing black men to hold the Priesthood, and allowing homosexuals to.

First of all, Blacks weren't excluded because of anything they 
themselves did, but because they happened to be born in a certain 
family.  As such, they weren't considered responsible for their 
condition, and weren't considered sinners because of their skin color. 
It was always understood that, at some future point, they would be 
allowed to hold the Priesthood.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, are called sinners solely because of 
their actions.  Whatever physical urges you might feel or experience, 
the Church teaches that you are in control of your body, and not the 
other way around.

As such, I have a hard time believing that the Church will ever condone 
homosexual activity.

IMNSHO, however, I would be seriously annoyed if someone tried to tell 
me to stop being attracted to women, and to go have sex with men 
instead.  In light of that, I think it would be highly hypocritical of 
me to suggest that homosexuals change their orientation.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I'll assume you meant "vote against" if we're talking about the CA 
> initiatives,

My bad, I got it backwards.  Of course, I would vote for the peoples' 
right to offend religious nutjobs :)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> As an interesting side note, it just occurred to me (because you said 
> they don't take state funding) that it's ironic that very large segments 
> of the membership think that Obama is a socialist (I've heard some at 
> work state that they believe that), but they pay their 10% income tithe 
> regularly in order to support the Church's outreach programs, to help the 
> poor, and to help lower the cost of tuition a their school.  It seems 
> that that is just a bit more socialist than they claim Obama is.

Well, Communism and Socialism were originally propagated by extremely 
religious people.

> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)

That's not the half of it.  Mormons actually believe in a form of 
Stewardship where everything is essentially owned by the Church, but 
given to the members to use (and care for) responsibly.  However, God 
stopped asking them to try living that way, because people in general 
are too selfish, greedy and petty to live up to it.

At one point, after everyone is righteous enough, that policy will again 
be implemented.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That "threat" of being booted out of the church for trying to promote an 
> alternative view seems to run counter to the "reminder" you describe 
> above.  I might even think it is more likely that it's a way to get 
> people to try to integrate the teachings of their church leadership into 
> what they've already been taught, rather than to promote challenging the 
> ideas.

If someone believed that God told them that what they had heard in the 
Church weren't true, I would expect them to leave the Church on their own.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:43:10 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That "threat" of being booted out of the church for trying to promote
>> an alternative view seems to run counter to the "reminder" you describe
>> above.  I might even think it is more likely that it's a way to get
>> people to try to integrate the teachings of their church leadership
>> into what they've already been taught, rather than to promote
>> challenging the ideas.
> 
> If someone believed that God told them that what they had heard in the
> Church weren't true, I would expect them to leave the Church on their
> own.

What if God told them it was their mission to correct the Church?  Then 
the Church's response would be to throw them out as a heretic.

That's the problem with people saying that God speaks directly to them.  
There's no way to verify it.  Yeah, I know, that's what "faith" means, 
but faith only goes so far, and when someone contradicts the Church "in 
God's name" or "because God revealed the *Truth* to them", the Church 
doesn't react very favourably to that.

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> What if God told them it was their mission to correct the Church?  Then 
> the Church's response would be to throw them out as a heretic.

If God spoke to you tomorrow, and told you to go correct the Mormon 
church, I would assume that He also tried to speak to the current 
leaders of the Mormon church.  An action as drastic as asking you to 
correct them must mean that they aren't listening to Him anymore.

Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you to 
do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:40:17 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> As an interesting side note, it just occurred to me (because you said
>> they don't take state funding) that it's ironic that very large
>> segments of the membership think that Obama is a socialist (I've heard
>> some at work state that they believe that), but they pay their 10%
>> income tithe regularly in order to support the Church's outreach
>> programs, to help the poor, and to help lower the cost of tuition a
>> their school.  It seems that that is just a bit more socialist than
>> they claim Obama is.
> 
> Well, Communism and Socialism were originally propagated by extremely
> religious people.

An interesting point. :-)

>> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
> 
> That's not the half of it.  Mormons actually believe in a form of
> Stewardship where everything is essentially owned by the Church, but
> given to the members to use (and care for) responsibly.  However, God
> stopped asking them to try living that way, because people in general
> are too selfish, greedy and petty to live up to it.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that before.

> At one point, after everyone is righteous enough, that policy will again
> be implemented.

Which kinda trods on God's grant of "free will", no?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:28:13 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It'll be interesting to observe how this plays out and at what point we
>> start hearing "well, Gays are equal, but it hadn't been revealed to us
>> when that would happen".  From the outside looking in, there seems to
>> be a fair amount of revisionist history in the Church.  As you've
>> studied it and are apparently a former member, I wonder what your
>> perspective on that is?
> 
> I can see how you view it as revisionist, and it certainly can appear to
> be that way.  However, there are some subtle distinctions between
> allowing black men to hold the Priesthood, and allowing homosexuals to.

Well, note that I didn't say "gays in the Priesthood", I was just talking 
about equality.

> First of all, Blacks weren't excluded because of anything they
> themselves did, but because they happened to be born in a certain
> family.  As such, they weren't considered responsible for their
> condition, and weren't considered sinners because of their skin color.
> It was always understood that, at some future point, they would be
> allowed to hold the Priesthood.

Given the relatively short history of the Church, I'm wondering when that 
"always" began.  Is it something that was "revealed" to Joseph Smith, for 
example?  Or did that revelation come later?

> Homosexuals, on the other hand, are called sinners solely because of
> their actions.  Whatever physical urges you might feel or experience,
> the Church teaches that you are in control of your body, and not the
> other way around.

That's pretty consistent with what other Christian sects teach as well.

> As such, I have a hard time believing that the Church will ever condone
> homosexual activity.

Well, I would tend to agree with it, but at the same time, if that were 
to come forth in a revelation of some sort (in the same way that the 
Church's views on polygamy changed - isn't it now considered a sin, but 
it didn't used to be?).

> IMNSHO, however, I would be seriously annoyed if someone tried to tell
> me to stop being attracted to women, and to go have sex with men
> instead.  In light of that, I think it would be highly hypocritical of
> me to suggest that homosexuals change their orientation.

Yeah, same here.  It's a shame that more people don't adopt that attitude 
and try to understand what it is that those who are saying "no, dude, you 
can't get married to that dude over there because YOU'RE DUDES AND THAT'S 
JUST ICK ICK ICK!" are being put through as a result.

I've said it many times before, but the fact that my BIL married his 
partner of many, many years doesn't affect MY marriage or MY feelings 
towards my wife one iota.  Of course I'm happy for them, but it doesn't 
cheapen my marriage at all, and I completely fail to understand how it is 
that some people can say that it does (or should) - for me or for them.  
I feel sorry for those whom it does make their relationship with their 
spouse "less special" - but it shows that their relationship isn't as 
strong as perhaps they want, so they're looking for an excuse.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:59:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> What if God told them it was their mission to correct the Church?  Then
>> the Church's response would be to throw them out as a heretic.
> 
> If God spoke to you tomorrow, and told you to go correct the Mormon
> church, I would assume that He also tried to speak to the current
> leaders of the Mormon church.  An action as drastic as asking you to
> correct them must mean that they aren't listening to Him anymore.

It certainly could happen.  Leaders often make mistakes or go on a "power 
trip" when given authority.  Look at the history of monarchies where the 
power the monarch received was "granted by God".  I don't see this as all 
that different.

> Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you to
> do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.

Perhaps, though the struggle/journey may have benefit as well for the 
long term.  That's the problem with trying to second-guess God's 
motivations, too.  There may be a reason why he might put someone on a 
collision course with the Church leadership that isn't apparent to anyone.

I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as non-Christian 
now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest - don't know if 
there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may find out at some 
point.  I just try to live a good life as best I can).  The idea of a God 
who meddles in earthy affairs bothers me, though.  Assuming the creation 
story happened in a way that's perhaps vaguely similar to the story in 
Genesis, it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the 
parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in 
motion.  But once the rules for how things interact in the universe were 
set, they can't be changed.

Assuming there is a God of course. :)

There was a very interesting Asmiov short story along these lines, but 
"God" was a child playing with a model, and he got bored with it after a 
while and just walked away from it.  The idea's been used in other 
stories (there even is a Simpson's Halloween special that played with the 
idea IIRC - I think Lisa was their "god" figure), and Asimov may've been 
riffing on someone else's idea.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Assuming the creation 
> story happened in a way that's perhaps vaguely similar to the story in 
> Genesis, it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the 
> parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in 
> motion.

That's a complete non-sequitar. How is Genesis anything like "setting up 
physics then sitting back and watching"?

(This is the sort of thing where someone says "I believe in God", and you 
get things like "10 things you have to think about" videos that make no 
sense in relationship to.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On 9-7-2009 9:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:59:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as non-Christian 
> now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest - don't know if 
> there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may find out at some 
> point.  I just try to live a good life as best I can). 

Some time ago I learned, and I think it was here, that that is not what 
'agnostic' means. An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know 
the answer to fundamental questions like the existence of one or more 
Gods. That is fundamentally different from someone who merely does not 
know, or doesn't care. Usage has been watered down and now often 
(erroneously) include your opinion, basically because people forgot to 
create a word to name that. Then again a word means what it is used for, 
so perhaps there is now no word anymore to describe an agnost in the 
original sense.
BTW is there in English a word to describe someone who thinks there is a 
higher power but does not know what exactly? In Dutch we have the newly 
created 'ietsist' for that (Dutch 'iets' means something).

Post a reply to this message

On 8-7-2009 21:14, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended
> 
> "Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites to 
> marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support "traditional 
> marriage."
> 
What about white and asian(indian) or asian(indian) and black? (or 
should I have used yellow(red) to maintain symmetry)?

Post a reply to this message

On 8-7-2009 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:14:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended
>> "Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites to
>> marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support "traditional
>> marriage."
> 
> Yeah, agreed with that.  It strikes me that those who defend so-called 
> "traditional marriage" don't really know what traditional marriage is.  
> They've co-opted the term to mean "one man and one woman", but that's 
> actually a relatively recent thing when it comes to the history of 
> humanity, from what I've read on the subject.

There is your problem, you have been reading too much.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> BTW is there in English a word to describe someone who thinks there is a 
> higher power but does not know what exactly? 

A deist?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 9-7-2009 21:52, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> BTW is there in English a word to describe someone who thinks there is 
>> a higher power but does not know what exactly? 
> 
> A deist?
> 
That implies god, I was looking for something even more general. 
Something that does not even imply a personality and includes options 
like 'the sum of all spirits of all living beings' or whatever.

Post a reply to this message

On 9-7-2009 22:41, andrel wrote:
> On 9-7-2009 21:52, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> BTW is there in English a word to describe someone who thinks there 
>>> is a higher power but does not know what exactly? 
>>
>> A deist?
>>
> That implies god, I was looking for something even more general. 
> Something that does not even imply a personality and includes options 
> like 'the sum of all spirits of all living beings' or whatever.

Tried my usual approach of looking it up on the Dutch wikipedia and then 
switching to English (should have done that before asking). Guess what, 
I end up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism .

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 9-7-2009 21:52, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> BTW is there in English a word to describe someone who thinks there 
>>> is a higher power but does not know what exactly? 
>>
>> A deist?
>>
> That implies god, I was looking for something even more general.
> Something that does not even imply a personality

I'm not sure how you can attribute a personality to something that by 
definition has no interaction with the universe. :-)

> and includes options 
> like 'the sum of all spirits of all living beings' or whatever.

Jedi?  Or just spiritual?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 9-7-2009 23:42, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 9-7-2009 21:52, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> BTW is there in English a word to describe someone who thinks there 
>>>> is a higher power but does not know what exactly? 
>>>
>>> A deist?
>>>
>> That implies god, I was looking for something even more general.
>> Something that does not even imply a personality
> 
> I'm not sure how you can attribute a personality to something that by 
> definition has no interaction with the universe. :-)

I think that the idea is that god does have an interaction with the 
universe, otherwise he/she/it might just as well not exist, you won't 
notice the difference... wait a minute, didn't we have this discussion 
before?

>> and includes options like 'the sum of all spirits of all living 
>> beings' or whatever.
> 
> Jedi?  Or just spiritual?
> 
whatever

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The difference between "religious socialism" (I like that term) and 
> "government socialism" is that the latter has control over your life in 
> the here and now.  The former?  Well, that's just your eternal soul we're 
> talking about - so doing it at that point is good for your eternal 
> existence.  But as for taking care of people in the current existence, 
> eh, screw 'em. ;-)
> 
> Jim 

I would argue otherwise. The whole point of religion is to control 
people "now", in order to save them "later", in some vague sense. So.. 
Might be more accurate to say that the intent of the two differs in that 
government socialism attempts to make real life better, while often 
getting it wrong, while church socialism tries to make the after life 
better, and usually doesn't much care if they get the here and now 
wrong, as long as the goal of making the afterlife better is reached 
(case in point, the number of wackos that insist that lying is OK, as 
long as it helps convert more people to Jesus, which is a "higher" truth 
than the mere trivia of what ever they lied about).

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> What if God told them it was their mission to correct the Church?  
>> Then the Church's response would be to throw them out as a heretic.
> 
> If God spoke to you tomorrow, and told you to go correct the Mormon 
> church, I would assume that He also tried to speak to the current 
> leaders of the Mormon church.  An action as drastic as asking you to 
> correct them must mean that they aren't listening to Him anymore.
> 
> Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you to 
> do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.
> 

Is a fun video from some scientist, last name Condell, I think, which 
basically states to the effect, "So why doesn't god do X and fix 
everything? Well, its rather obvious isn't it, since if we assume he 
exists at all, his track record, based on the Bible, shows someone as 
incompetent, stupid and gullible as his followers." And, therefor, in 
this case, bright enough to so empower someone, actually bother to 
correct the current leaders, instead of just picking some random person 
to "fix" things, without telling the leaders anything at all, or having 
the actual foresight to recognize how much of a failure the attempt will be.

Needless to say, Condell has a rather dim view about how dim god would 
have to be, if he existed. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
>> That's not the half of it.  Mormons actually believe in a form of
>> Stewardship where everything is essentially owned by the Church, but
>> given to the members to use (and care for) responsibly.  However, God
>> stopped asking them to try living that way, because people in general
>> are too selfish, greedy and petty to live up to it.
> 
> That's interesting, I hadn't heard that before.

It's not something they advertise, of course, since most people have 
enough of a problem with the 10% tithe :)  If you look for information 
on it, it's called the Law of Consecration.

>> At one point, after everyone is righteous enough, that policy will again
>> be implemented.
> 
> Which kinda trods on God's grant of "free will", no?

Not any more than having commandments in general does, I believe.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The whole point of religion is to control 
> people "now", in order to save them "later", in some vague sense.

I actually had an interesting thought about this a long time ago that I 
never wrote up extensively.

Consider the tragedy of the commons, or any other problem where individual 
selfishness is bad for everyone compared to individual altruism, *if* you 
can get everyone to cooperate.

Government can avoid this by making the "cost" function of being selfish 
high enough that the altruism mechanism is more attractive. E.g., cheating 
on a contract can cost you more than the value of the contract.

Religion can avoid this by making the "reward" function of being altruistic 
high enough that the selfishness is less attractive. E.g., cheating on a 
contract now gets you money but loses you eternal bliss.

In the best of worlds, both government and religion are in the same business.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you to
>> do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.
> 
> Perhaps, though the struggle/journey may have benefit as well for the 
> long term.  That's the problem with trying to second-guess God's 
> motivations, too.  There may be a reason why he might put someone on a 
> collision course with the Church leadership that isn't apparent to anyone.

Once you start trying to second guess an absent figure with no physical 
manifestation and no reliable means of communication, then you really 
need to take a break.

> I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as non-Christian 
> now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest - don't know if 
> there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may find out at some 
> point.

Yeah, at this point I'd probably say I'm agnostic with atheist leanings. 
  Quite a change from my upbringing ;)

> it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the 
> parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in 
> motion.  But once the rules for how things interact in the universe were 
> set, they can't be changed.

The clockmaker theory, then?

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Once you start trying to second guess an absent figure with no physical 

Once you start trying to first guess an absent figure ....


FTFY. HTH. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:08:07 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
>>> That's not the half of it.  Mormons actually believe in a form of
>>> Stewardship where everything is essentially owned by the Church, but
>>> given to the members to use (and care for) responsibly.  However, God
>>> stopped asking them to try living that way, because people in general
>>> are too selfish, greedy and petty to live up to it.
>> 
>> That's interesting, I hadn't heard that before.
> 
> It's not something they advertise, of course, since most people have
> enough of a problem with the 10% tithe :)  If you look for information
> on it, it's called the Law of Consecration.

Thanks, I'll do some more reading - helps me understand people I work 
with and who live around me. :-)

>>> At one point, after everyone is righteous enough, that policy will
>>> again be implemented.
>> 
>> Which kinda trods on God's grant of "free will", no?
> 
> Not any more than having commandments in general does, I believe.

Well, there's a bit of a difference between commandments and "waiting 
until enough people are righteous enough", I think...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:21:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The whole point of religion is to control people "now", in order to save
> them "later", in some vague sense.

Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to get 
people to believe in an afterlife and then use that belief in an 
afterlife to control them now (by implanting fears about how they will 
spend eternity if they don't do the things the religious leadership wants 
them to do).  Making people think they will spend an eternity in hellfire 
and pain will motivate people to do a lot of things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:11:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> In the best of worlds, both government and religion are in the same
> business.

Very true.  The fundamental difference is that the Government deals in 
your life today, religion typically deals in your eternal life.  Of 
course that differs from religion to religion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:40:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Assuming the creation
>> story happened in a way that's perhaps vaguely similar to the story in
>> Genesis, it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined
>> the parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in
>> motion.
> 
> That's a complete non-sequitar. How is Genesis anything like "setting up
> physics then sitting back and watching"?

God created x, y, and z.  After that some stuff happened, maybe God did 
some fine tuning, but now we don't see that type of intervention because 
things are in motion and God cant' change them, or perhaps he's bored 
with this universe and working on another.

It's not really a non-sequitor, I just didn't explain my thought fully 
enough.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:12:17 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you
>>> to do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.
>> 
>> Perhaps, though the struggle/journey may have benefit as well for the
>> long term.  That's the problem with trying to second-guess God's
>> motivations, too.  There may be a reason why he might put someone on a
>> collision course with the Church leadership that isn't apparent to
>> anyone.
> 
> Once you start trying to second guess an absent figure with no physical
> manifestation and no reliable means of communication, then you really
> need to take a break.

Well, I have discussions like this with my brother from time to time - 
his degree is in philosophy & religion.  "absent figure" might also be 
"nonexistent figure" for that matter. :-)

>> I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as
>> non-Christian now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest -
>> don't know if there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may
>> find out at some point.
> 
> Yeah, at this point I'd probably say I'm agnostic with atheist leanings.
>   Quite a change from my upbringing ;)

I bet it is. :-)

>> it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the
>> parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in
>> motion.  But once the rules for how things interact in the universe
>> were set, they can't be changed.
> 
> The clockmaker theory, then?

Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:32 +0200, andrel wrote:

> An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know the answer to
> fundamental questions like the existence of one or more Gods. That is
> fundamentally different from someone who merely does not know, or
> doesn't care.

Well, yes and no.  It may be that we cannot know the answer to these 
questions, but the acknowledgment that one doesn't know (or doesn't care) 
is a type of manifestation of the same line of thinking, at least from my 
point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:41:37 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 8-7-2009 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:14:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended
>>> "Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites
>>> to marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support
>>> "traditional marriage."
>> 
>> Yeah, agreed with that.  It strikes me that those who defend so-called
>> "traditional marriage" don't really know what traditional marriage is.
>> They've co-opted the term to mean "one man and one woman", but that's
>> actually a relatively recent thing when it comes to the history of
>> humanity, from what I've read on the subject.
> 
> There is your problem, you have been reading too much.

Certainly some people thinks so.  There are others who think that we 
think to much, and should just go with *their* gut. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 03:14:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to


Gosh! I must be a cynic too then. Although I would substitute "organised"
religion for religion.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11-7-2009 9:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:32 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know the answer to
>> fundamental questions like the existence of one or more Gods. That is
>> fundamentally different from someone who merely does not know, or
>> doesn't care.
> 
> Well, yes and no.  It may be that we cannot know the answer to these 
> questions, but the acknowledgment that one doesn't know (or doesn't care) 
> is a type of manifestation of the same line of thinking, at least from my 
> point of view.

I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that you 
can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that the 
search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions from 
others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a sound 
basis to build your own ethics.
I don't like the "I don't care".

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 03:19:23 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> The clockmaker theory, then?
>
>Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.

I don't think so. IIRC the watchmaker argument (if that's what you mean) is
faulty. Firstly it needs you to recognise that a watch is an artefact. Secondly
it was created to support a position (God must exist). I could go on but people
better than I have taken it to bits, like an old watch.
Even if it were true why should such a god be worshiped or even honoured?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:58:05 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 11-7-2009 9:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:32 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know the answer to
>>> fundamental questions like the existence of one or more Gods. That is
>>> fundamentally different from someone who merely does not know, or
>>> doesn't care.
>> 
>> Well, yes and no.  It may be that we cannot know the answer to these
>> questions, but the acknowledgment that one doesn't know (or doesn't
>> care) is a type of manifestation of the same line of thinking, at least
>> from my point of view.
> 
> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that you
> can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that the
> search ended. 

I don't think that necessarily follows.  Just because one can't know 
something doesn't necessarily mean the search has ended - some people are 
just that stubborn. ;-)

> The former means that you are open to suggestions from
> others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a sound
> basis to build your own ethics.

Perhaps, I'll have to think on that some more.

> I don't like the "I don't care".

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who have come to 
that conclusion, either.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:49:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2009 03:19:23 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> The clockmaker theory, then?
>>
>>Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.
> 
> I don't think so. IIRC the watchmaker argument (if that's what you mean)
> is faulty. Firstly it needs you to recognise that a watch is an
> artefact. Secondly it was created to support a position (God must
> exist). I could go on but people better than I have taken it to bits,
> like an old watch. Even if it were true why should such a god be
> worshiped or even honoured?

Well, assuming it were true, I would agree that worship would be 
inappropriate, but marvel/honour of someone who created something that 
complex?  Some people honour those who create things that demonstrate a 
high degree of knowledge or experience, so why not?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:23:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2009 03:14:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to
> 
> 
> Gosh! I must be a cynic too then. Although I would substitute
> "organised" religion for religion.

LOL, point well taken.  I am cynical about organised religion, at 
that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:11:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> In the best of worlds, both government and religion are in the same
>> business.
> 
> Very true.  The fundamental difference is that the Government deals in 
> your life today, religion typically deals in your eternal life. 

No, that's what I'm saying. Religions don't tell you about your eternal 
life. They tell you about what you have to do *today* to get your eternal 
reward. I can't think of any religion that tells you about your eternal life 
without telling you how to behave in this one.

My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, you can either 
increase the reward for cooperating or increase the punishment for refusing 
to cooperate. And government and religion are both in a good position to do 
one or the other of those.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> God created x, y, and z. 

Um, OK.  I think an awful lot of religious nuts think God is actively 
intervening, tho.

I had another thought, tho...   People say "the universe was created, and 
thus needs a creator."  But what makes people think the universe hasn't been 
around forever?

Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years. 
Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into 
one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the 
first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2009 03:19:23 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> The clockmaker theory, then?
>> Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.
> 
> I don't think so. IIRC the watchmaker argument

I think the watchmaker argument and the clockmaker argument are different.

Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God exists 
to design it.

Clockmaker: God started the universe, wound it up like a clock, and now it 
just ticks along with no further need for attention from the clockmaker.

As I understand it...

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 12:01:34 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:23:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jul 2009 03:14:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to
>> 
>> 
>> Gosh! I must be a cynic too then. Although I would substitute
>> "organised" religion for religion.
>
>LOL, point well taken.  I am cynical about organised religion, at 
>that. :-)
>

They turned into a means of controlling the people a long time ago. IMO.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message