Thanks. By that link, it would appear that I was totally off base. Sorry about that.
Mayo
IANAC (anymore), but I’ll try to play Devil’s Advocate and give a GQ answer.
God game Adam and Eve free will. They chose to sin against God by disobeying him. This sin was passed down to all of their descendents. Prior to Jesus, God’s followers could attone for their sins; at least one way was by sacrificing animals. Jesus sacrificed himself to take the place of all of these other sacrifices. So humans are all still born into sin. [I suppose it’s theoretically possible for a human, of their own free will, to go their entire life without ever disobeying their parents, being unkind to anybody, etc… but none, except for Jesus, ever have.]
I tried to make the above as vague as I could. I don’t feel like debating any of it, as I don’t believe it myself. But I believe that that is the way that most Christians (protestant, at least) see it, more or less.
Well, they are spectacular bakers, and Jesus did his fair turn at miraculous baking.
It only stands to reason… 
As a non-Christian, I must say that I’ve never read this and I find it to be a beautiful and compelling idea. He created us and gave us free choice, thus insuring that those who loved and believed truly loved and believed. If one believes such, then it would be a sign of a sublimely brilliant and loving God.
Cartooniverse
I wonder, though: what is it about freedom that is supposed to make love freely entered into better than, so to speak, “preprogrammed” love?
If they are both genuinely love, then what is (relevantly) worse about the latter?
If the latter is not genuinely love, then why not?
-Kris
According to Genesis, they didn’t know right from wrong until AFTER they ate the fruit, so their act of disobedience could not have been either a sin or an act of free will.
This whole line of thinking is totally knee-capped by two things, first, that true free will cannot logically exist without expressing itself in purely random (hence morally valueless) choices and second, that it isn’t possible to love something if you have no reason to believe that it exists.
The idea that belief without evidence is a moral virtue is also a complete bankrupt idea in iteself. For one thing, belief is involuntary and so beyond moral “choice.” For another thing it turns salvation into an arbitrary guessing game. Those who correctly guess without evidence which theological assertions are true are “good” people and those who guess wrongly are “bad.” It’s absolutely no different than if God said you could only get to Heaven by guessing what number he’s thinking of between 1 and infinity.
He took all the sin of the world, and beared it. It was so strong it killed his physical body.
Plus, he didn’t save anyone to heaven but his disciples. There’s no such thing as unearned salvation or enlightenment, it is very hard and no one can do it for you, or by believing in someone and you’ll be enlightenend and saved, no it doesn’t work that way. He only allowed mankind to continue and improved the culture of the world.
But he’s not here anymore, he can’t bear the sin of the world if he isn’t in a human body on this plane with us.
The battle still continues today. The darkness still reins on earth
“From age to age I am incanate, to support the good and to defeat and transmute the evil”
Then again maybe Jesus did not actually die, and was taken off the cross prematurely
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. Many people I know have made definite choices in their lives in regards to what they do or do not believe. Quite a few of those choices are based upon moral feelings.
That’s called being convinced of something. There’s no such thing as “choosing to believe.” You are only either persuaded or not persuaded. Belief is a dependent variable, not an independent one.
Can you make yourself believe in the Easter Bunny? Not just say it but sincerely believe it. What if your life depended on it?
I’ve tried to think about this issue on occasion.
How about this, do you think it’s possible for a person to convince themselves that something is true?
-Kris
Yes, but there would still have to be independent variables which would allow them to do so. You can’t really do it without some kind of subjectively persuasive evidence or argument.
In the Mormon church, they encourage inquirers to decide whether they want to believe what they term the gospel, and then, if they do want to believe it, the church tells them, they should just start acting as though they do believe it. Eventually, the idea is, “I’m acting like I believe it” will transform itself into “I really do believe it.”
When I first heard this, I thought it was preposterous-that they were describing an impossible situation.
But since then, I’ve started to wonder. If lots of people report that an account like this is accurate w.r.t. how at least some of their beliefs have been formed, then who am I to say they are wrong?
Furthermore, in reflecting on my own religious history, I find it’s difficult to say whether back when I was a kid I “really believed” in my parent’s religious doctrines, or whetehr I was “only acting like” I believed them. I find the line between these two to be difficult to draw.
anyway, none of this is conclusive. What do you think? Is there some reason why a scenario like the one I’ve described is conceptually impossible? Or, perhaps, is there some reason it doesn’t count as “choosing what to believe absent rational reasons to believe it?”
-Kris
It’s a combination of the power of suggestion and a reluctance to examine assumptions. Telling people to live as though they believe it is another way of telling them not ask themselves questions. There’s also a level of trust involved. People get indoctrinated into religions because their parents tell them it’s true and children trust their parents.
Maybe I didn’t make it clear that the people was talking to w.r.t. the mormon church are non-mormons, whom the church is trying to convince to become mormons.
With that in mind, your case can’t be made based on a notion that the church is telling them not to ask questions. The question is, how do such people come to really believe mormon doctrines in the first place? (Assuming they really do.)
In other words, the person says “I’m wondering whether the mormon gospel is true.” The mormon evangelist might say “don’t ask questions, just join the church,” just as you say, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether it is possible to come to “actually believe” as a result merely of “acting like you believe,” so construing the evangelist in that fashion does not speak to the issue.
You’re right about the trust issues, of course.
-Kris
Like I said, suggestion plays into it as well. So does confirmation bias. So does a lack of falsifiability. Plus the subjects still have to start with some preconception that the doctrines are at least possibly true. The evangelists aren’t really starting with a clean slate. If you’re even wondering if the doctrine is true, the battle is halfway over.
Do you WANT to believe that you have superpowers?
That’s kind of a non-starter, right. You don’t believe that’s even possibly true, so you can’t really persuade yourself of its veracity.
I don’t think anybody gave this answer yet:
-
The born into sin thing is genetic. Adam was the first human, Eve his wife, and when he sinned, death entered into the world, through the birth defect, i.e., sinful nature. I think Romans says “In Adam, all died.” Maybe that’s Luther, I can’t remember, but the idea is in Romans and Corinthians. Ergo, we are a species of spiritually dead entities.
-
Jesus wasn’t in the bloodline to undo what Adam did. His sacrifice on Calvary was substitutionary, not as a new primary parent. It was not to create, or even to redeem, a people for God based on bloodline, but on faith, and He points out that salvation is for those that believe. We find in the New Testament that without faith, it is impossible to please God. God is a faith kind of God, if I may. As to why God chose this way, I can’t say.
Best wishes,
hh
Looking at the spectrum from more liberal to more conservative I’m not sure what standard is anymore. I think many liberal Christians would say not going to church isn’t necessarily a sin. If you feel the spirit is urging you to go but you choose not to then that might be. Either choice has consequences. Will God reach out and punish you for that. Some would say yes but I think we just have to deal with the often unforeseen consequences of our choices.
Again, I’m not sure. Is gluttony a sin? Should I save that last piece for someone else or eat it myself? Should I leave it because the doctor advises me too or just go for it? Which relatively minor choices might be a sin? I suppose you’re right though if we consider Christ sinless and still in human form making choices. It’s a concept beyond me for the most part. If I and the father are one, have I surrendered my will or am I simply choosing to be what I truly was all along, rather than struggle with false perception? Sometimes the idea of oneness seems like too much surrender and is a bit scary. Here’s an interesting passage from
To me that’s the spiritual journey.
How about a spiritual spirit? I get what you’re saying and in lots of Christianity saying God feels meaningless to you is a horrific sin. IMHO walking the path is having the courage to be true to yourself rather than let social pressure and a desire for the approval of others dictate our beliefs. In that case atheist or agnostic may be on the path that is right for them at this point in time.
If hell is considered a place then your point makes sense. If your presence brought pain to someone would it be an act of kindness to be in their face? Would it be kinder to let them work through their issues until your presence did not hurt or frighten them?
I think that’s a lot of what attracted me to RLDS theology years ago. The different levels of glory and the idea that people continued to grow and learn after they left earth.
Have you seen Defending Your Life with Albert Brooks and Streep? I love it. In it it is explained that the point is to get smarter and overcome your fear. In a courtroom type setting Brooks looks at his life and is judged not ready to advance. They even look at what happened after death and it is after death that he decides to throw caution to the wind and challenge his fears. A funny and thoughtful flick.
It was my own objections to much of contemporary Christianity that got me to the point where I dropped the name for myself. too much doctrine that separates us from each other and is way out of line with what Jesus actually taught. IMHO.
I have been exploring other concepts presented in “A Course in Miracles” which are much more interesting. This claims to be the teachings of Jesus as well. After accepting and then rejecting Joseph Smith I am simply looking at the ideas rather than buying the package they came in.
Looking at my own beliefs and how they changed and envolved I would say it is as much emotional as anything else. People often relate a personal subjective experience to what is around them. The pull of being a part of something greater that is supported by a large group is pretty powerful. If people are around Mormons and encouraged and supported emotionally by Mormons that might sway them to accept religious beliefs. A rejection of certain beliefs in any church may mean a rejection by that family and that can be hard to bear so we decide perhaps unconsciously to not question too much and that our group of choice must be right because the consequences of really examing those beliefs and perhaps abandoning them seem to much.
Jesus speaks of this by telling people they have to be committed to the truth above all, even family or long held tradition.
Well, that is a good question actually. I cannot imagine true belief being based in terrorism, and threatening my life if I do not honestly believe in the Easter Bunny is terrorism.
One can choose to accept a set of parameters that include pure faith, and then that faith ( as near as I can see from the outside, not being a faith-based fellah myself ) becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You believe, therefore you have faith and the faith IS the belief in a higher being. Yes, you can make that choice consciously. I’ve never taken with the idea that in order to have faith or believe in a higher power, I have to be persuaded by an outside power. Much to the contrary- those people whose religious feelings seem to me to be most genuine, have come by their faith through internal feelings, not though exterior persuasion.