Religion - Truth Relationship
The idea that religion is truth, truth religion may be a beautiful one, but is there any reason to think it is true?
Truth is a relationship between a theory and the world.
Religion is a relationship between a theory and the mind.
Is it possible that nature itself, at its most fundamental level, possesses an abstract religion that a true theory is bound to mirror?
What makes this explanation suspect is that standards of theoretical religion tend to be ephemeral, routinely getting overthrown in scientific revolutions.
Every property that has at some time been seen as aesthetically attractive in religion has at other times been judged as implausible.
The closest thing to an enduring mark of religion is simplicity. Thomas Jefferson's bible is a prime example. Remove the mysticism and retain the moral character.
The problem with this solution is that the superstitious uneducated want comfortable visions of the unknown.
Ignorance breeds true; that is the closest it gets to truth.
cd-editor
Making Scripture Conform To Doctrine
I attended ward conference yesterday and had planned on going to all the meetings. As I glanced over the church bulletin, I saw that the SS lesson was to be Isaiah 22, with the chapter heading making Messianic observations. I have studied this part of Isaiah extensively and knew if I attended that meeting I could not keep my mouth shut. I also knew that I would cause conflict with some members of the stake leadership because of my views on this chapter in Isaiah. I went home; sadly knowing that I could not express my views in such a closed minded society without repercussions.
Using this lesson as an example of the understanding of the lay membership of the doctrines of the church will allow me to discuss the failure of understanding and scholarship of the scriptures by the body of the church. IMHO this process of reading and discussing only small sections of Isaiah, without looking at the history, leads to false theological concepts that are made to uphold doctrines that are not sound.
If this lesson is a true reflection of the doctrinal knowledge of LDS; I would postulate that most, if not all, of their beliefs are based on the acceptance of the beliefs of others and have little or no reflection of their own knowledge and scholarship.
LDS accept the BofM to be the most perfect book of scripture ever published. Therefore, one would expect conscientious LDS to heed the admonition of the Savior concerning the study of Isaiah:
“And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah.” 3 Nephi 23:1
If we take a more in-depth look at Isaiah 22, it seems to show an interesting amount of diversion from what is described in the chapter headings and footnotes of the LDS Standard Version Bible. Also some of the important doctrinal wording appears to have been changed from the original Isaiah text of earlier vintage (Dead Sea Scrolls & Masoretic text). Most scholars agree that chapter 22 was written or compiled sometime after 586 B.C.. Since Isaiah was a prophet in Israel from 742 -700 B.C., that leaves a difference of 114 years. Therefore, Isaiah 1 probably did not write this chapter. In fact, because of the title conformity of chapters 13-17; 19; 21-23 these chapters undoubtedly were written after Isaiah’s death. If this is correct, I am not sure the Savior was speaking of these writings. Another area of difficulty is the association of Isaiah with chapters 40-66, some of which are quoted in the BofM. Comparing structure, history, and wording, most Isaiah scholars believe that these chapters were probably written after the Babylonian captivity and the return to Jerusalem.
Now let’s get to the subject of the SS lesson, Isaiah 22: What is listed as the beginning of verse 1 is actually the title of a messenger speech - The Burden of the Valley of Vision. The first verse actually starts with the message that begins - What aileth thee now…
Verse 15 starts the story of King Hezekiah’s royal steward, Shebna, who was in charge of the palace. The history of this event appears to indicate that Shebna was pilfering royal funds to construct himself a burial vault. A large tomb belonging to a royal official with Shebna’s title has been excavated on the eastern edge of the valley of Kidron, across from the City of David. It is located in what is now the Silwan neighborhood. Archeological evidence points to an 8th-century date for the tomb, which would suggest it to be that of Shebna. If so, Isaiah’s prophecy that Shebna would never enjoy his magnificent tomb is either incorrect or merely rhetorical, for the owner of that tomb was in fact interred there.
Verse 20 tells us that Hezekiah replaced Shebna with Eliakim the son of Hilkiah. The footnote to verse 20 , in the LDS Standard Version, states that Eliakim is a symbolic name representing the Messiah. Three points are used in supporting this assumption:
1. The name means “God shall cause to arise”.
2. The clothing of Eliakim with authority. (verses 21-22)
3. The “nail in the sure place”. (verses 23-25)
The problems with these analogies are as follows:
1. Isaiah describes Hezekiah as a God during his coronation in chapter 9 verse 6.
2. The clothing of authority was the standard practice during these times to indicate that transfer of authority from one to another.
3. The “nail in a sure place” was not in the original early version of Isaiah and seems to have been added in 100-300 A.D.. The original Masoretic text used the metaphorical term “tent peg” to signify Eliakim ensuring a secure place for his family. The 25th verse then seals the evidence that Isaiah was not speaking of the Messiah, because Eliakim then commits the same transgression as did Shebna and is removed from this station along with the fall of his family.
Reading and praying about verses 20-25 of chapter 22 of Isaiah will not qualify for “search(ing) these things diligently”.
No matter how sincere the SS instructor bears his testimony that he “knows these things are true”; a testimony is like a computer - garbage in , garbage out.
Cd-editor
If you are a religious person that supports the Republican Party, I think the action taken this past week by the IRS should be a wake-up call for you.
The IRS is examining the tax-exempt status of the All Saints Episcopal Church of Pasadena, CA because the pastor, Rev. George F. Regas gave a sermon two days before the 2004 presidential elections condemning the war in Iraq. He also said that the proposed tax cuts were a war against the poor.
What should one expect a Christian minister to say? "Good job, Georgie!"
He was also quoted during the sermon to say, " I am not telling you how to vote. That is the golden boundary we did not cross".
Every church in America should stand up and support this Episcopal church in their efforts to maintain religious freedom in this country.
If your church doesn't, you might consider if the leaders believe in freedom of choice.
Of course, we all know quite a few churches that do not believe in freedom of choice for their members. Maybe they are Christian in name only.
cd-editor
Your quote for the day
"The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or offensive."
Sam Harris
Religion - A State of Mind
I have found it impossible to participate in organized religious life because of the lack of fidelity. This problem of fidelity is inherent in religious organizations that claim secular truths from metaphysical origins; when metaphysics is defined as the study of what is without spatial or temporal dimension and therefore cannot be measured.
I am not interested in debunking religion. I am seeking a condition of faith that allows me to be religious without destroying fidelity. I will not try to cover religion in general because it would be like trying to compare amoeba to elephants. I will speak primarily of Christianity, the religion of not only my youth, but also of my mature years. Because of the failure of religion, in my life, concerning the principles of fidelity, I will attempt to speak to you religiously rather than about religion.
A religious life can be a life of felicity. In fact, I think the evolution of mankind has primed the mind of man for this religious felicity. Whenever the human species acquired the gene that kindled the concept of god, that event appears to have made the possibility of social construction possible. A society where the group is more important than the individual would be more successful evolutionarily because of multiplicity of effort. Therefore it seems possible that the Christian mind is hard-wired for a belief in a “good god”.
The failure of religion(churches), in spite of this hardwiring, is because they preach informational doctrine. They teach mystical things as fact - Adam as first man, Noah and the animals two by two, Moses and the burning bush, third day he rose from the dead - leaving the thinking individual with an impossible dilemma.
What we need from religion is religious or transformational language. The language of lovers.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1 Corinthians 15:21-22)
I don’t need this verse as information; I need it for transformation.
This verse when used as informational evidence does not transport the spirit to the realm of truth, proven fact, reproducible evidence or even faith. It is worse than false, it is simply irrelevant and parasitical. Upon examination it fails the test of touching the soul. But this same verse when spoken with the conviction of lovers, not “Eros” but “agape”, then it floods the soul with hope and reverence to a higher level. This love addressing is concerned with the transformation of messages instead of the transportation of information.
It seems as if we have lost the spirit of religion to belief. In fact, to believe that which is not believable.
The burning in the bosom comes not from fact, but from desire.
Can we accept religion that is not factual?
Yes, but only by seeking the growth and not the evidence
cd-editor
Reference:
Bruno Latour in Science, Religion, and the Human Experience
This should probably be listed under the topic of business instead of religion.
Do any of you good people out there have any idea who is the CEO of Property Reserve Inc.?
I will give you a hint.
Property Reserve Inc. is the real estate arm of the LDS Church.
This little company that does not mingle with tithing funds has just purchased the Salt Lake Community College's downtown campus at 115 S. Main Street for a tidy sum of 5.2 million dollars. Oh, did I mention that this was a cash transaction? This will be just a pittling addition to the one billion dollar renovation of downtown SLC. But again, remember no tithing funds are involved.
The Isaiahic scholar Avraham Gileadi got into trouble by suggesting that Isaiah had prophesied that in the latter days there would be a falling away of the true church from Christian doctrines.
I am not sure why he would say that, but I think if you are interested in a little light scripture reading, as suggested by the brethren, you might just read 2 Nephi 28.
I have tried to separate the verses into two catagories - speaking of the gentiles and speaking of the true church. I am sure there is some mixing of the subjects in these verses, but I will give my interpretation.
Verses 1 & 2 the introduction
Verses 3 to midway 14 speaking of the gentiles
Midway 14 - 17 speak of the saints
Verses 18 - 20 of the gentiles
Verse 21 saints
Verses 22 & 23 gentiles
Verses 24 - 31 saints
Verse 32 gentiles
I am sure that I may be mistaken about all of this and would gladly repent if someone will show me the error of my ways.
cd - humble follower
I see that President Bush had a PPI with President Hinckley yesterday.
It appears that it was a discussion that had nothing to do with stewardship.
From the smiles on their faces, I would guess that neither called the other to repentance. What a shame!
I wonder if either man has read and prayed about Matthew 5?
President Hinckley has a second witness in 3 Nephi 12; in the most perfect book ever written.
The dogs of war cause me to shudder
cd-editor
Moses, Moses, Where Art Thou?
Does anyone, other than me, find it interesting that the history teacher at Queen City High School uses Cecil B. DeMille’s Ten Commandments to teach 15th century BCE world history?
I can rationalize the fact that probably a majority of the students in her class will never crack their world history book. I can also rationalize, that by watching this movie, they will at least learn that the Egyptians build pyramids. I guess what worries me is if the movie has even a miniscule relationship to actual history.
What may be of more importance is the fact that this unproven, and in fact not provable, archetype of redemption and liberation theology will continue to influence Western political thought. If you are taught to believe that God acts in history, then you vote to support that history. The fundamentalist irrational support of Israel is based on this ignorance of history.
Admittedly, I realize that I cannot prove there was no Moses, as described in the movie; or even as in the Holy Bible. But neither can it be proven. As with so much as is in the Bible, belief or disbelief in the historicity of the Exodus narrative becomes a matter of faith. It appears that most or maybe all of this faith in the history of the Old Testament is flawed.
Except for those conservatives who insist on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (thereby allowing Moses the privilege of recording his own death), scholars of all critical schools agree that the Exodus account is a composite, a literary construct, carefully composed and edited to achieve historical and theological coherence, and this myth, was composed over centuries. As a side bar, this shines a light on suspicious prophetic writings such as the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. At least in those areas that describe the life of Moses. Most of the writings can be identified as anachronistic. Recent research indicates that even more of the extant Exodus account than previously thought comes from periods during or after the Israelite monarchy or even the exile. The biblical Exodus account was never intended , that is until recently, to function or be understood as history in the present-day sense of the word.
A look at just a few of the facts makes this story mythical in the eyes of any discerning person.
1.Exodus 14:5-9 describes 600 Egyptian chariots with horses, yet both horses and chariots are unknown or rare in Egypt prior to Dynasty 18 (1479 - 1425 BCE). Moses was supposed to have lived somewhere between 2000-1700 BCE according to the Jewish calendar of events as described in the Old Testament.
2. Exodus 12:37-38 states that the number of those involved in the exodus was about 600,000 men on foot, besides children. A mixed crowd also went up with them, and livestock in great number. If you consider women and children, even with a conservative estimate, this mob would have numbered at least 2.5 million souls. Such a number, particularly when combined with “livestock in great number” would have constituted a logistical nightmare and is impossible to imagine anything remotely approaching them, especially considering the inhospitable Sinai desert. The entire population of Egypt in the mid-13th century BCE has been estimated at 2.8 million.
Was there ever a Moses?
Biblical dates and numbers are indifferent to concerns of strict historical accuracy. As with other details, the biblical reckonings are subservient to theological images and themes. The improbabilities of the data can be rationalized in different ways; but once rationalized, they lose their claim to ancient history.
The “Founding Fathers” of this Republic, separated church and state to prevent the very problems we face today with our leaders using biblical prophecy to make state policy.
Teaching children false history leads to an ignorant electorate.
cd-editor
"President Bush is pro-life only from conception to birth."
Jan Andrews, SLC, Utah
Is it possible to have a rational discussion with a committed believer?
The answer in most cases appears to be no.
An odd paradox was explained in a research paper by a trio of sociologists from the University of Minnesota, led by Leon Festinger.
In When Prophecy Fails, Festinger and his co-authors explained that a committed believer, faced with irrefutable evidence contradicting his belief - with what Festinger called a "disconfirmation" - would redouble rather than diminish his efforts to defend his view. Stranger yet, the more harshly reality dealt with a belief, the more feverishly the believer would work to convert others.
I guess there is a feeling of safety in numbers.
Maybe that is why membership figures are so skewed from reality.
cd-editor
The three jobs of man that brings forth the blessings of heaven as stated in one verse -
A man's work is having a beautiful wife, smart children and a fine garden.
Ah, I am so blessed.
cd-editor
I have been looking at the problem of how to have a rational discussion with someone that says, “I know” concerning things of a metaphysical nature.
When one says, “I know” under these parameters, it is a provisional response to particulars and irreproducible circumstances. “I know” is subjective. When the answer one is seeking is subjective , you have already made the decision of right or wrong. Subjective decisions are decisions in which one has a vested interest before the question arises.
When someone says, “I know the Law of General Relativity is true.”, this statement can be examined with the tools of science.
Conversely, when one says, “I know the Law of Tithing came from God.”, there is no way to prove or disprove that statement.
“I believe” would appear to be the correct response.
Religion by its very nature should be symmetrical. Religious symmetry can be examined, proven, or found to be asymmetrical. If religious doctrine has symmetry, then it should be able to withstand rational examination and be verifiable. It needs to have the quality of possessing exactly corresponding parts. In other words, the bible should not contradict the Book of Mormon. If there is a lack of symmetry, then “I know” becomes a mordant statement.
The arrow of time is a scientific principle that has withstood the test of mathematics, physics, and even the esoteric field of philosophy.
Time travels in only one direction --->, it is asymmetrical.
Many of the doctrines of Christianity require that time has symmetry.
An easy example to consider is that after you break an egg you cannot un-break it.
One can repeat a thousand times, “I know that God can un-break an egg”, but that does not make it so.
To un-break an egg requires the reversal of the arrow of time. Until proven otherwise, that is not possible.
I propose that no one can “know” something that is not provable.
It is not religion to supply us with the sense for religion.
It is for religion to supply us with the sense for life.
cd-editor
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3951446
It seems as if Weber State turns out thinking graduates.
I must say I agree with the stated problems that Neilsen sees in the church.
The Lord does not expect the members of the church to be non-thinking sheep. The church leadership wants obedient and dossal members.
The medical name for the condition preferred by the church leaders was coined by an eminent government lawyer , Cerebral Achondroplasia.
What I truly pray is that the members will have enough backbone to force the brethren to reform the church. The Mormon Church is in need of a reformation of the same order as was the Catholic Church during the times of Martin Luther.
Now don't take me wrong, I don't think this will be an easy or painless process. The brethren will have to be dragged to correction while they are screaming, kicking and holding church courts. All reforming of power structures has victims and I suspect most of the victims will be innocent in the eyes of God.
In my humble opinion the church is worth the effort.
There is no better organization on this earth to raise children, strengthen families and make people better citizens in the world community.
cd-editor
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3942475
I bet the brethren still don't think they made a mistake by firing this guy.
Let's hope it's a learning experience for them.
cd-editor
Jeffrey Nielsen, adjunct professor in the Department of Philosophy was fired for an op-ed piece he wrote in the June 4 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune.
He stated in the article, "I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral."
In a letter dated June 8 from the BYU Department of Philosophy, Chairman Daniel Graham said, " In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church. Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over."
If the glory of God is intelligence, there would appear to be very little glory in the Department of Philosophy at BYU.
Of course, I should not be too harsh with Brother Graham. I would bet he received instruction from 50 East North Temple Street and that is the residence of the mental midgets(thanks for the term Tom) that dictated this action.
The definition of philosophy is the study or science of knowledge. How is it possible to teach philosophy without looking at all possibilities?
I guess the brethren are worried that the students at BYU do not have the mental capacity to reject false doctrines. How correct they are. Of course that is not the students fault; if one is not allowed to think for themselves, how can they judge for themselves?
I suspect that opposing gay marriage is not immoral, but it is not civil, as pertaining to liberty of citizens in a democratic society.
If the church considered the Constitution of the United States to be inspired by God(D&C 101:77) when it supported slavery, I understand why they would want to change it now to suppress civil rights of some citizens not of their ilk.
What is immoral is supporting a political party that is responsible for actions that are not Christian or even considered ethical when using the lowest common denominator for a standard.
Like the Dixie Chicks, I am ashamed.
cd-editor
If one takes a close look at institutional religion, fear is paramount in keeping the faithful in line. Especially fear of the answer to the question "Where am I going".
That question in it's self is not the total reason for that fear; the controlling factor is how do I get there.
Organized religion uses this question to control it members. The different religions have different qualifications, but the sum of the controlling efforts revolve around obedience to laws, rules and leaders.
An example is the revelation given by Joseph Smith, Jr. to his wife Emma when she rebelled at the idea of him taking pleural wives. In this revelation, recorded in the 132 Section of the Doctrine & Covenants, verse 54, the voice of the Lord says to Emma - And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
What more could an unrighteous husband ask for than the Lord thy God tell her she is going to hell if she does obey her husband?
This verse is a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse.
This scripture is considered as being a direct communication from God to man and is accepted as true doctrine by the leaders and members of the Mormon church.
Where is the freedom of Christianity in this revelation?
The insouciant Christian is the individual that rejects all efforts by leaders to use unrighteous control to advance their agenda.
The claim of infallibility by religious leaders is always unrighteous because it is an opinion based on their desires. Whether these desires are good or bad has nothing to do with the fact that it is controlling with mendacity.
I have tasted freedom without controlling fear and it is delightful to the soul.
cd-editor
Bloomburg Institute #14
How does one cope with betrayal by God?
Start with a cursory examination of religious betrayal and it is evident that God is not the perpetrator. The guilty party is man; our parents, our minister, preacher, bishop, pope or prophet.
What is religious betrayal?
The recognition that all we hold sacred is something less than what we have been told by those that have mentored our religious lives.
Our parents responsibility in this scenario is generally that of a believer. There is no intention of fraud.
The same cannot be said about our religious leaders, especially those that set the doctrines and policies of our religious organizations.
When one finds out that these respected, godly men are in fact leading us down the path of fraud and manipulation, the betrayal is catastrophic.
It is not easy to accept that one's god is like that god of the pagans, man-made of stone and sand.
Dealing with this religious betrayal is like going through a bitter divorce. The shock and pain of finding out that one's eternal, trusted and loving companion is in fact a prostitute and without fidelity is devastating.
The recovery stages can vary among individuals, but proceed in a step by step process such as - denial, shock, anger, depression, fear, and finally acceptance.
Once the acceptance stage has been reached, the true healing can begin. Acceptance allows one to then begin the the process of evaluation. This evaluation process has a healing effect because it allows the victim to understand the who, how, and why this charade occurred in our lives.
The Who
Church leaders are those individuals - singular or plural - that are authority figures in our early life. Respected individuals that have the ability to put us in communication with god. They speak with authority because we give them that authority. As neophytes, we believe their authority comes from God because we are told this is so. This can be traced from youth where parents reinforce this idea in their children or as adults wanting to be accepted by God.
How do these religious leaders receive this authority? We give it to them. We are taught to respect authority. We are taught that these authority figures are honest. We participate in the process by becoming authority figures ourselves.
The most common method of receiving authority is parenthood. The most common method to receive authority in religious circles is being "called". Neither position requires expertise.
One comes about from a primative urge to pro-create and the other from a primative urge to remove fear of the unknown.
It is nearly a miracle that success is possible under these circumstances. The miracle must have supernatural origins - hence we seek God.
The calling process reinforces the faith of both the giver and the receiver. As this process is repeated, both the giver and the receiver accept the proposition that it must be true because so many "smart" people are involved in the process.
We should remember that everyone involved wants this to be true.
The Why
In all likelihood, most people are hard-wired genetically to want an all knowing god and to be guided to the next life by that god. Since the majority of us haven't seen god, we rely on those that make such claims.
Why would this be a positive genetic trait? Because the belief in god is "good" and requires motivation; this motivation is reflected by societal gains of those possessing these genes.
Why these religious leaders lose their efficacy is due to the ever expanding knowledge of things once considered mysteries. The religious leaders first fill a void and nature abhors a void, but as man gains knowledge, the void is filled with knowledge and this exposes the ruse of our religious leaders. Once this process of filling the void with knowledge begins, the perfect doctrine of the only true religion, which most claim, has no way to go but towards our feeling of betrayal.
The How
First we are in denial. We tell ourselves that we can't be wrong. Wise and good men would not lead us astray. We want it to be true. Then shock, anger and depression, in any order, various degrees and combinations flood our mind.
Fear then enters the picture. What will happen to my life? What will my family think? Should I just forget the facts and live the lie.
This is a very dangerous time for the individual. Personal trauma by this betrayal can lead to mental illness, family dissolution, financial hardships and a complete breakdown in life structure.
But it is also the time when the individual can find true freedom. Freedom from the unrealistic pressures of standards set by man.
It is also the time to find god in self.
I hope my thoughts make this growing process a little easier.
cd-editor
Bloomburg Institute #13
How is it that good men, church leaders, can support religious doctrine that is blatantly false on close examination?
I think one must divide these church leaders into at least two or more categories.
The first category is those that live by faith without knowledge of the facts. An example is "I believe the bible (or any other doctrine) to be inerrant". These types of statements require a closed mind - a mind that depends on faith. Faith is something you want to be true. If you want something to be true, just ask God the question, "It's true isn't it?" and you will get an affirmation(testimony) from God that it is true. The burning in the bosom is that innate desire to have what you want, to be true. You can convince yourself of anything if you want it bad enough.
Most lower level leaders fit this mold.
There is a subset, category 1A. Those leaders that have doubts, but are entwined in the culture to such an extent as to make them incapable of true scholarship. These individuals turn a blind eye to the facts, to preserve their religious environment. This is a case where truth is not as important as lifestyle. This semi-rational decision is based on the idea that one will understand things better in the future. The only problem with this line of thought is that the future never arrives.
I have personally been in both of the above categories.
Those in category 2 would appear more carious.
They have access to extensive evidence that illuminates the flaws in church doctrine, yet they continue on a path of professed piety supporting what they know to be false.
What are the possible reasons for this group to sustain false teachings?
1. cupidity
2. avarice for power and fame.
3. I suspect none of the above are true motivations for most of these good men. Although, I also suspect reasons 1 & 2 make it more difficult to change.
I suspect it is the concept of trying to lead a large diverse group of people to a better life and hope for an afterlife. They believe they are doing it for the good of mankind and acting in behalf of God.
These men made an early commitment to a sacerdotal life and when later knowledge became available, they had to compromise truth for the "greater good".
They have reached the point in their leadership positions where turning back to truth seems impossible without destroying the church as it is now constituted.
What a difficult position to find one's self!
I see incremental steps to correct this policy of sustaining lies.
The revision of history is one such step; but it has the flaw of substituting one lie for another.
Another method is to start teaching a different doctrine and pretend there is no conflict - still living a lie.
Lies and truth are like Babylon and Zion - they can never coalesce to form a good community of faith.
Is there a solution?
Yes, I think there is.
Admit that mistakes were made. It is not necessary to be overly specific; but turn from the past to the future. Continue to teach family values and use church assets for good works. Truly become a society of the teachings of Christ.
Will this happen?
I am not holding my breath, but will hope and pray.
cd-editor
http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_3844426
Can Robert Kirby say that?
Could it be true that churches are their own worse enemy?
A recent study conducted by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York found that in the last ten years there has been a 106% increase in American's that say they are "nonreligious".
I can very well understand those figures.
My experience in my own church has pushed me to the fringes of the congregation.
I have made great efforts to get answers that would satisfy even the most faithful member.
All I have received in return are metaphysical testimonies that have no evidence or substance.
Churches cannot expect members to play possum their entire spiritual lives.
Brain dead doctrine is not acceptable to most educated people.
If the church leaders desire to have only ignorant, uninformed, and blindly obedient members, I suggest they continue on the same path.
Seeking truth does not lead to disenchanted members; cover-up, lies, and expecting blind obedience does.
Can a church survive doctrinal flaws? I believe it can by stressing culture, goodness and rejection of past mistakes rather than trying to hide those mistakes.
Do church leaders have enough integriy to correct these problems? Are they so at ease with the status quo and comfortable leadership positions they cannot make these changes? Is power so corruptive that "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man" is inevitable?
Time will tell.
cd-editor
Not having the ear of God, I don't have much to say about old Judas, one way or another.
I do suspect, if the information in circulation is correct, he probably didn't have time to write the Book of Judas before he disemboweled himself. Of course, my time frame may be off and he waited until he wrote is book before he killed himself. If that be the case, maybe it was because he couldn't find a publisher.
It is hard to disagree with Popes and Prophets, but Benedict XVI seems to have missed the point in his sermon today.
He said that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples to purify them so they could join him in the Last Supper. If I am not mistaken, this was not the first time he and his disciples had broke bread together. I am of the opinion that Jesus was teaching the important principle of humility, not religious purification. He didn't want the apostles to get the bighead once he was gone. It seems that is a problem with some apostles.
I understand that prophets in this dispensation also wash the feet of their disciples. I don't think this makes them any purer. You know, they have already received the second anointing and are already Kings.
It seems as if Popes like to make big deals out of symbolic teachings.
The Last Supper becomes the Eucharist and the wine turns to blood and the bread to flesh. It seems to me as if some sharp scientists would collect a sample and clone another Christ - ah, another best seller.
As I read the scriptures, it seem as if Christ set examples; not a lot of mumbo jumbo.
No fine cloak, no church, no rings, no money, malls, farms or factories. He taught by example, hence only "Follow Me" and "Feed My Sheep".
Pretty simple is it? Even a child can understand.
et seq
The poor innocent watermelon is catching a lot of flak.
This inanimate green, non-mobile, non-thinking, object; without sin, guilt, malice, pride or passion is receiving the derision of the worldling.
Is it not the farmer that makes the claims - sweet, good, without blemish?
Does he not claim it, a melon that has the answers to all questions, the blessings of all the Gods, and the ingredients to give life everlasting?
If this be so, then all of this revolves around the definition of "it".
Now tell me, who's the dummy?
Which one of you reading this screed was forced to eat the watermelon?
Which one of you even gave a second thought about the claim that this was a special celestial watermelon? Did you even investigate the origin of this melon that was brought to farmers by aborigines planting a golden seed?
If your parents first gave you watermelon, you have a good excuse for eating watermelon.
If you were an adult, you have no grace.
Oh well, Bush happens.
cd-editor
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3649390
If you haven't seen Big Love on HBO, you may want to send your friends an email to stop the broadcast of this sinful portrayal of Utah Mormons living in sin. (see above link)
Well maybe if they are dead they are not sinning.
The point not brought to light is that hundreds or maybe even thousands of pleural marriages are being performed in Utah annually.
I am not sure how the letter from the First Presidency, dated 17 Mar 06, will effect these sealings for time and all eternity. The letter did indicate that polygamy was associated with spousal and child abuse. I guess the question is can dead people be abusive?
I also guess that a person that lives in a glass house should not throw stones. I have given some of my ancestors the opportunity for this polygamous abuse.
cd-editor
I am going to throw you a hard curve ball and let's see who can hit it.
I think there is nothing that taste so good as a good sweet watermelon.
I have heard and do believe that a good watermelon makes bad men good and good men better.
I don't think you have to be ashame to have to hold your nose when in the patch. There are always good melons and bad melons in the patch.
Maybe we do all need to sow something. Ideally it should be able to withstand the heat and light of the day, but perfection is hard to find.
I guess the answer to the question - Is life shallow without watermelons? - is yes.
Most of us seek the peace, assurity and comfort of a good watermelon. Is this a driving force of nature? of evolution? of knowledge?
Is it possible to raise watermelons that won't spoil?
Primitive man thought it was impossible to have ice in the summertime; now it is hard to imagine why he thought that.
Seek and ye shall find
cd-editor
A hunter - gatherer was searching the world over for food to sustain herself and her family. As she came to a small clearing, she found large green balls laying on the ground. She burst one open and found the substance inside delightful to the taste.
She called to her family and they also partook of the fruit of the vine and found it to be a marvelous work and a wonder - a gift from God, and they called it watermelon.
She and her slave, called husband, spread the seeds from this fruit to all that desired to partake and even to some that didn't.
It was as if it was a big green stone rolling around the countryside crushing all the other fruits in it's path. Some of their children spread the seeds to distance places.
All went well for many years of harvest, but then came a season of intense sunlight and heat. The green balls turned yellow and the once delightful substance inside became rancid and bitter to the taste.
Wo unto the watermelon farmer whose fields are exposed to excessive light.
Yet few watermelon farmers have experienced this bright revealing sunlight. Hearing they shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing they shall see, and not perceive.
For the hearts of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts.
Amen and Amen
Dedicated to PK
Why Disobedience
Disobedience to convention is necessary in the search for personal spirituality.
Personal spirituality and personal morality can be used interchangeably in this discussion.
Personal spirituality does not come from being yoked with others in organizations that seek to control spirituality. Spirituality comes from "listening to the inner-self" or as often described by Christians, "the Light of Christ".
There are no institutions that one can join in seeking personal spirituality because they all are by necessity based on prinicples of self-preservation and self-preservation leads to restrictive institutions. Restrictive because they are controlling of their members. These institutions are also restrictive spiritually because they hide the truth by claiming infallibility.
The claim of infallibility makes it impossible for them to be fluid.
Seeking truth is always a fluid endeavor because knowledge is forever progressive.
Institutions are by nature conservative - that is how they become institutions.
Conservatism is the disposition to perserve what is established.
This leads to a policy of "I know I am right and I know you are wrong".
"I know" is not a synonym for truth.
Spirituality must be based on truth.
Like Babylon and Zion - capitalsm and spirituality are not compatible.
The business of capitalism is to get all out of a business that you possibly can.
Religion has become big business, big politics, and therefore with little spirituality.
cd-editor
Is Jesus a Conservative or a Liberal?
This question arose recently when I was asked the question if I had problems with the conservative policies of the church.
I think most churches can be labeled one way or the other - conservative or liberal. The question that is relevant to Christian churches is what label would fit the Savior.
The only place we can find the answer that would be accepted by most members of the Christian movement is the scriptures.
Lets examine the scriptures on the topic of the redistribution of wealth. The reason I chose this area for discussion is because I believe most conservatives are adamantly against taxes and social programs that have the purpose of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
The gospel contains many references to this subject. Lets consider three scriptures in Matthew.
Matthew 5:38-47 - This scripture from the Sermon on the Mount seems to have a liberal view on the responsibilities of our relationships with our fellowman.
Matthew 19:16-22 - The requirements of discipleship
Matthew 25:31-46 - The credentials that separate the sheep from the goats.
The next scripture is one that I will quote because it defines our responsibilities and also the penalties of not keeping these directives from the Savior.
Doctrine & Covenants 56:16 - Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; And this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation.
The following quote from Hugh Nibley's book Approaching Zion is very relevant to this discussion.
"We know what Zion is, we know what Babylon is, we know the two can never mix.."
How do conservatives mix them while professing piety?
"By the use of rhetoric - The art of making true things seem false and false things seem true by the use of words. The trick is to appear rich as the result of being good - to cultivate the virtue of respectability. The worse sinners, according to Jesus are the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism."
The above statement describes the religious right, the Republican Party, and those that claim to have the "only truth".
Looking at this one caveat, it would appear to me that Jesus is a flaming liberal.
If there is a conservative in the audience that disagrees with this interpetation, I would appreciate your comments.
cd-editor
When I first read this opinion, I thought it was just a good tongue-in-cheek letter to the editor. Then I considered the newspaper, state, city and likely religion and thought about the number of friends I have that feel the same way.
Bush the Messiah should make you fear judgment day. Unless of course, you have the same idea of a national savior.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3493685
cd-editor
What We Don't Know
Religion has since the beginning of time supplied answers for the masses to questions that had no answers. Religion abides in the realm of mysticism - the belief that man can intuitively know God or religious truth, through the inward perception of the mind, related to a spiritual communication or contact with God.
This is not reality - the state of fact or of being real, having actual existence or having actually occurred.
We should not confuse reality with belief. Knowing God in the mind is not the same as knowing God in fact. It is by definition mysticism or a mystery. No less an authority than Paul the apostle said when he saw God - 2 Corinthians - I knew a man in Christ(whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth).
Joseph Smith, Jr. also had a problem with this same concept - reality or mysticism. D&C 137:1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.
The phrase "I cannot tell" answers the poignant question of reality or mysticism. Religion is based in the mind of man. The religious writngs are based on man knowing God in his own mind, not in the physical world. Not only is this knowledge baseless in the physical sense, but it requres humility(a desire for it to be true). See D&C 67:10 The veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am - not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual.
You cannot want something to be true and expect that you will get an honest answer when asking yourself for the unbiased truth!
If God has the attributes attributed to him by man, I personally think he would expect us to find answers and not manufacture ethers.
Contrary to the commonly held beliefs of the majority of religious people, the universe is a comprehensible place.
More on this in the next institute.
cd-editor
Thanks Forrest Gump
The Utah State Senate yesterday passed a bill requiring science teachers to tell their students that evolution is not fact and there are other options.
Senator Nutters, excuse me Buttars, seems to live in a vacuum. Does he not realize that this religious exercise has been defeated in multiple states and has cost taxpayers millions trying to defend this stupidity?
Oh well, I guess it is correct; so goes the Mormon Church, so goes Utah.
Rather than trying to refute science, I think it would be easier to find some witches to burn,
cd-editor
I think that church leaders, whether they be Popes or Prophets, need to apologize to their members rather than look for apologists to cover their mistakes.
Ministers on the local level are good honest men, in the most part. They may repeat doctrines and policies that they believe are from a higher source, correctly or incorrectly, but normally have no hidden agenda.
Those church leaders at the higher levels have access to historical data that should allow them to know the truth of what they preach. If that information refutes church doctine, then they are worse than infidels for hiding this information from their members.
I don't expect perfection from my church leaders, but I do expect honesty.
If they are honest and their cause is just then I sustain them. If they are dishonest and their cause is fraudulent then I condemn them from the roof-tops.
I have a hard time believing that their faith overcomes these efforts to mis-inform the members.
cd-editor
Is there a need for an organization for humanity to use as a lifestyle guideline?
If according to Nietzeche and Dostroyevsky "everything is permitted"(nihilism), then there is no need for a "rule of law".
There is a temptation to suppose that ideas(cause, law, unity, being, etc.) exist solely because of linguistic convention, and therefore it should be easy to settle on agreed meanings. But I believe that these thoughts do not arise randomly and accidentally, they naturally occur whenever humans think.
Can imperfect people live a perfect lifestyle? I am not asking for people to live perfectly, but looking at the possibility of a standard.
If I may be so bold to continue the process, started when humans became verbal, of searching for Utopia.
Organizational Chart
A. Statement of Purpose - seeking an aid in the magnification of self, society, environment
B. Guidelines - fluid, not static until theories become fact
__________________________________________________
1. Leadership - difficult decisions on this subject
2. Total equality - sex, race, gender relationships, etc...
3. Economics - methods of meeting financial obligations
4. Lifestyle - temperate
5. Relationships with other organizations(governmental, religious, secular)
Any and all suggestions are welcome
cd-editor
Philip Pullman's definition of theocracy which he defines as encompassing everything from Khomeini's Iran to explicitly atheistic states such as Stalin's Soviet Union. Characteristics of this broad definition includes - a scripture whose word is inerrant, a priesthood whose authority tends to concentrate in the hands of elderly men, a secret police force with the powers of an Inquisition, and the tendency of human beings to gather power to themselves in the name of something that may not be questioned.
Is it not interesting what a wide swath of ideologies this definition covers?
Is it also not uncommon for each of these different groups to condemn each other as being satanic?
The big and difficult question for me is: why do we do this to each other?
cd-editor
Is God A Racist ?
I have been looking at this question for some time.
One caveat that might clear up that question is the Standard Works(Bible, Book of Mormon, etc); are they the word of God or the works of man trying to define God.
You will have to make up your own mind on that question.
Let's look at a few scriptures.
Daniel 11:35 speaking of the wicked to be purged and "make them white"
Psalms 51:7 - about the same as above - "whiter than snow"
Genesis 4:15 an God set "a mark upon Cain"
Genesis 9:25 "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
Search any good Bible dictionary or topical guide for the words: chosen, heathens, wicked, and see the correlations between white and pure - black and wicked.
The next set of scriptures comes from the Book of Mormon. A book accepted by 12 million members as being given to man by God and the most perfect book ever published, so stated by it's translator, the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.
The first edition was published in 1830.
1 Nephi 13:15 - Gentiles "white, fair and beautiful."
2 Nephi 5:20-21 - curse of black skin because of sin
Jacob 3:8 - white skin related to degree of sin
3 Nephi 2:15 - Lamanites(American Indians) skin becomes white like the Nephites when they live the gospel.
3 Nephi 19:25 - white good - black bad.
A Prpohet of God, Joseph Fielding Smith, stated that people have a black skin because they were not valiant in the pre-earth life. (Reference on request)
Did these concepts, published in the Book of Mormon, pre-date it's publication in 1830?
In the fall of 1781 Thomas Jefferson, a slave holder, wrote the Notes on the State of Virginia. The Notes supported the termination of slavery.
David Ramsay, a noted South Carolina historian wrote Thomas Jefferson an stated " in a few centuries the negroes will lose their black color. "I think they are less black in Jersey than Carolina." These changes are due to becoming civilized not by miscegenation.
The Reverend James Madison predicted that the American Indians would get a white skin after they accept civilized ways. (1779)
As I seek wisdom, I am willing to consider all views. Your thoughts on this question are appreciated.
cd-editor
Thinking About Mortality
When someone in our age group and social sphere dies, it causes reflection on the "Golden Questions" - Where did I come from?, Why am I here?, Where am I going?.
John David Zylks died on Christmas Eve morning of an apparent heart attack.
As I age, this question is brought to mind more frequently.
The answers to the "Golden Questions" are easy to repeat; the proof these answers are correct is less than Socratic.
If we refuse to consider these questions about mortality, it leaves a void in our security blanket of continued existence after death.
Every thinking person that values mortality, desires a continuation of existence.
Does psychological health require us to have an answer?
I suspect so.
Religion fills the void.
History indicates that all the great thinkers in every age have sought an answer to the dilemma of mortality.
Ancient, as well as modern man, has failed to come to an examined answer; that leaves religion.
Religion does not require any verification or even logical possibilities. Religion requires only acceptance(faith).
Historically man's unanswered questions have been answered by religion.
As man has progressed in scientific knowledge, religion has had to give ground on these mysteries.
What is amazing to me is how thinking people will accept as fact, religious doctrines that are completely illogical. Example - Noah's Ark
I do understand how we accept doctrines concerning the hereafter. There is no other explanation, scientific or otherwise, to fill the void.
The fact that I will accept an explanation from a man that is no more qualified than myself to answer that question is evidence of a desire to have answers - logical or not.
Prophets speak with authority from God. That is an answer to two unanswerable questions - Is there a God and will he tell me the answers to the Golden Questions?
Ah, that makes me feel better!
cd-editor
Ordination By The Numbers
Evidence indicates that humans have had religious leaders since the dawn of civilization. These leaders have had various titles - shaman, witch doctor, minister, priest. For simpilicity's sake, I will refer to all such leaders as priest in the following discussion.
The decision for giving this honor to man has been based on various qualifications - mysticism, lineage, apprenticeship, vocational training and unique to the LDS church -age.
Males receive the priesthood at the followng ages in the LDS church:
Deacon - 12 yrs.; Teacher - 14yrs.; Priest - 16yrs.; Elder - 18-19 yrs,; and High Priest - 60 yrs. (to maintain peer group).
Preparation, worthiness, knowledge of church doctrine and policy have little or no effect on ordination.
I think the question that needs to be asked before ordination is " Does the church need this person to be a priest?" Not, "Does this person need to be a priest?"
By calling everyone to the priesthood - butcher, baker, candlestick maker and thief - the priesthood becomes a non-event to the membership.
Members of a religious societies need to be able to look up from their pews and see someone to whom they can relate with compassion and charity.
The experience of godly work is more important to the priest than is authority. Compassionate leadership relies on a priest's capacity to reveal his own experience, yet remain detached from the world of sin.
Leadership requires a communion with human suffering.
Ordination confers both rights and responsibilities. Rights in the church are of constant usage and responsibilities are mainly ignored.
It taxes my neurons to understand how every male receives these rights and responsiblities and yet there is not one female in the church more qualified than the most simple-mind twelve year old male deacon.
When an organization excludes more than 50% of its members from decision making. I would think that there would be some major mistakes in both doctrine and policy.
Is it possible for a male to understand every thought and emotion of a female?
If the answer is no, then female input is a must in developing church doctrine and policy.
The old boys club has outlived it's usefulness, if it ever had any. It is time to recognize that God is not a respector of persons.
cd-editor
This past week the LDS church lost a lawsuit in the amount of 2.5 million dollars. Two young sisters were awarded the money for damages suffered due to parental sexual abuse. The church incurred it's liability when priesthood holders failed to notify civil legal authorities.
A question that begs an answer; do all priesthood holders in the church need liability insurance?
Normally lawyers will go after the church because it has deep pockets, but what if a home teacher failed to take proper action? They could be held libel, I believe.
This is a question that needs an answer and Salt Lake should inform the priesthood on where they stand.
cd-editor
Theological Obedience
These observations may be more for me than thee, but maybe we can all learn together.
I have been looking at the question of obedience in the religious sense and have come to the conclusion that definition is important.
To whom are we to be obedient?
First lets consider obedience to God. I suspect that instead of the term obedience to God, we should use the word obeisance to God. This deference or submission must be self-examined because no other person can tell us what we think about God and his plan. I have a hard time believing that God sends us personal information through a bureaucratic process.
To depend on others for this information leaves us open to their definition of obedience and truth. Just as we have causation to color our decisions, they also have causation and their causation may possibly and in fact more likely disagree with ours.
"Thou hast counseled a better course than thou hast premitted"
Augustine
It is natural to look to others for advice, but the final decision should be ours and not that of some doctrinal persuasion.
Consider the statement in the Church of England Prayer Book of 1549:
"There was never anything by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted."
So I conclude that we personally must decide what God desires of us as citizens of his community.
The second consideration is that of obedience to a religious society. Here the definition of obedience is the compliance to the doctrine and rules of that society.
Donald Cozzens discussed this in his paper Confusion.
"Religious obedience has quite an exceptional dignity. In its absolute form, we owe religious obedience to God alone. But just as God's revelation comes to us only when mediated, so too, the truths of faith reach us only when mediated. The meaning of faith and the authenticity of religious obedience confront a crisis when religious authorities demand all too much submission to an obscure package of doctrines."
It is even more a problem when those religious authorities demand obedience to their desires to maintain authority despite evidence contrary to their doctrinal statements. This has been evident many times when a religious body removes members from fellowship because their statements caused doubt in the veracity of the leaders.
These actions are especially repugnant when scholarship is the deciding factor.
Avraham Gileadi, a recognized Isaiahic scholar, was disfellowshipped from the Mormon Church when he came to the scholarly opinion that both the Book or Isaiah and the Book of Mormon agreeded that there would be a falling away of the church in the latter-days. He was commanded to not publish this concept and when he did not follow that counsel, he was handled by the church local authority. This appears to me to be in conflict with free agency and the doctrine that recognizes that man should not be held accountable for ignorance in doctrinal matters.
Being a member of a religious society is completely optional. Therefore if one disagrees with the doctrines of that society, they should withdraw from that society or if they decide that the society is of benefit to mankind in gereral, they then have the moral obligation to reform that society. As in the case of Martin Luther, if the society removes the dissenting individual from their society that individual should make other efforts to correct problems outside the controlled environment.
I think that dissent is a valuable commodity to any organization that desires to correct flaws in it's doctrine or policies. Truth never fears questioning.
Does this opinion confict with the principle of obedience? I guess in some ways it does, but only if those in authority demand unrighteous obedience.
I am sure there are flaws in my thinking and I would not hold you in derision if you disagree and are disobedient.
The controversity over intelligent design has been solved.
A leading Catholic scientific authority, Pope Benedict XVI. has come forward and said that the creation was an intelligent project.
He also quoted another great scientific pundit, St. Basil the Great, that backed up his statement.
Is this pundit a Herb or an herb?
Since former Popes have stated that evolution is the method that God used for the creation, is this statement saying that all those funny looking creatures that preceded mankind were intelligently created for recreation?
Well at least the Pope has the nerve to enter the discussion. We can't say that about all religious leaders.
cd-editor
The Light of Christ
I guess a good place to start this discussion is with a definition.
The Light of Christ is that deep inter-feeling that tells all mankind right from wrong. It is a light of understanding from Jesus the Christ, a member of the Godhead, that encompasses the whole of creation.
Everyone may not agree with this LDS based definition. If so, please tell us your understanding of the term.
If, I am sure this is a big "IF", there is truly no moral compass; if all our actions are the results of past experiences of an earthly existence, then there would be no such thing as the Light of Christ.
The reasoning behind this last statement is that one of the problems is the definition of right and wrong.
It might be easy to have most people agree that murder and incest are wrong, but when you throw in the idea of abortion, circumcision, blood atonement, plural marriage, baptism of infants, baptism by immersion or sprinkling, and a few hundred other disagreements among religionists, things get sticky.
I think everyone has had the experience of thinking, "I heard or saw that before I was born". This is an easy step to take if one is prone to think on a metaphysical level.
One is prone to think on a metaphysical level because we all have hope of life eternal.
If we truly think metaphysically, then we have a cause to believe metaphysically.
That is sufficient to explain a belief in the Light of Christ, even when we can't agree on the rights and wrongs.
If we can't agree on the rights and wrongs, if there a light?
I am right and you are wrong is what as known as religious hypocrisy.
Take your choice and drink the poison. Either way you are intellectually dead.
cd-editor
Many new comments to the questions on agency.
See the original BI #3
Your ideas and thoughts are appreciated.
It is by discussing these points of theology that we can investigate our beliefs.
I hope that everyone feels safe in making comments in the Bloomburg Democrat, because I believe that no idea is without merit.
cd-editor
Freedom to Choose in the Moral World
It seems right to think that we make moral choices based on free agency. This free agency/free will is an abstract concept with a base built on the idea of moral responsibility.
One of the major concepts of religion is that we are free to choose right or wrong and are rewarded or punished accordingly.
Is it possible that this might be a flawed doctrine?
Consider this statement by Schopenhauer - " A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he cannot determine what he wills".
A more concrete idea than free will is that there is a cause for every act.
If person "A" must make any decision, that decision is made in relationship to antecedents. If "A's" parents were divorced, it will be more likely "A" will make the same decision when faced with spousal discord.
This concept presents problems for the idea of responsibility for sins. Will God hold someone responsible for sins that have a causality due to parental abuse; due to Adam's transgressions; due to genetic damage caused by a cocaine addicted mother; a cocaine addicted mother caused by sexual abuse by a parental uncle; a sexual abusive uncle caused by the trauma of battlefield atrocities; caused by tortured soldiers that committed battlefield atrocities; due to a war started by a vengeful president; caused by trying to live up to the example of a highly successful but distant father >>> to infinity.
To add to this doctrinal dilemma is the idea of an omnipotent and omniscience God. If God is all powerful and all knowing, how can he punish one of his children for sins that are caused by external factors beyond their control?
We personally do not determine which genes we will inherit or what external and internal factors will develop our character.
We all react rather than act.
Choices are based on antecedents and opposite antecedents cause opposite choices. Can a person be held morally responsible over choices of which they have no control?
We quite often find the actions of those in different cultures very repugnant. We ask now they could make such choices.
An example might be the status of women in Afghanistan. How could an Afghan father restrict the education of his daughter? Maybe he has no choice due to causes beyond his control. Just because we see a "correct choice" does not mean he can see the same choice. If you cannot visualize the education of your daughter, then it is not an option.
Under these circumstances religion is not a facilitator, but becomes an obstacle. All religions have some form of doctrine that denotes worthiness and unworthiness.
If people are controlled by antecedents, they do not possess true free will; they can be neither good nor bad - just reactive.
cd-editor
Phillip Johnson a retired law professor and father of Intelligent Design says some natural features are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. This statement was made during a visit with students at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas last Wednesday.
I wonder who in the world, universe, heavens, he is speaking about as the intelligent cause?
Could he be possibly speaking about God? Is this an effort to inject creationism into the realm of science? Could it be that he is speaking at Washburn University, a church school, so that the students are receptive to this make-believe science?
He couldn't possibly be talking about the God of the bible because we all know that God is not well-ordered from his own statements.
In Moses chapter 1, God describes how many worlds he has created and destroyed. Does this sound well-ordered?
In Genesis 6:6 it states - and it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Does this sound well-ordered?
I wish Brother Johnson would be more specific and tell us the identity of this intelligent being.
I want to make sure that I am praying to the top guy.
cd-editor
Modern Day Republican Pharisees
Definition: A religious party among the Republicans lead by George W. Bush.
They pride themselves on their strict observance of religious law, and on the care with which they avoid contact with liberal thinking. The tendency of their teaching is to reduce religion to the observance of a multiplicity of ceremonial rules, and to encourage self-sufficiency and spiritual pride. They are a major obstacle to true Christianity. (compare to definition in Bible Dictionary)
See Matthew 23; Mark 7 and Luke 11:37-54 for Jesus's opinion of this life style.
Example: Matthew 23:24 - Ye blind guides which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
These modern day Pharisees strain at gnats- free will choices of individuals and swallow a camel - The January 25, 2002, opinion President Bush received from Alberto R. Gonzales, now the United States attorney general, held that the President was not bound by the U.S. federal War Crimes Act of 1996 or by international law prohibiting torture, nor were Americans committing torture under his authority open to prosecution by the Justice Department. Gonzales also called the Geneva Conventions "quaint and obsolete".
We all know what has taken place since that time - Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Cuba, indefinite imprisonment, deliberate denial of legal recourse, extraordinary rendition, no access to the International committee of the Red Cross, no legal representation , and the President's right to order "treatment of detainees" that inflicts pain up to the limit of causing organ failure, death, or long-term psychological damage.
This White House policy authorizes American officers to commit acts for which the Second World War Allies hung German and Japanese commanders.
Can anyone find anything Christian in these actions?
If anyone supports this "government of Pharisees", I suspect there will be a price to pay if there is ever a day of judgement.
cd-editor
A Law By Another Name
There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated -
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (Doctrine and Covenants 130: 20-21)
An object at rest tends to to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. ( Newton's first law of motion)
The word law describes two distinctively different entities. Because we use one word, "law", to describe two so dis-similar actions, we quite often mix their meaning in our understanding of each.
The first law is a man-made law. Man-made laws(MML) are a moral standard that is set by man and proscribes behavior. These laws set standards that contradict the natural desires of mankind - if this were not so, there would be no reason for making the laws. MML describe how something should behave.
MML are based on a state of compulsion and there are penalties if these laws are broken. Because compulsion and penalty are inherent there is no freedom of action, hence no free will or free agency.
Because MML are laws of compulsion they can become intolerant , un-fair, and selective. This is the reason it is difficult to legislate morals - who sets the standard?
The second law might be described as a natural law or maybe a rule(Probably a poor choice; I need help here).
It is how something does behave. Natural laws(NL) are a description of what happens. Newton's first law is a fact and not a moral obligation. Free agency is not a question here because our actions do not effect NL.
Because we tend to mix these two different ideas, we have silly arguments about evolution vs. "intelligent design"(ID). ID fails as an explaination because it uses NL to try to explain and support MML.
Faith must support MML that have no natural basis; only moral basis.
NL need no moral support.
To assign NL to a higher being makes God a person of both good and evil.
cd-editor
Intelligent Design has always been ignorant, but now they are going stupid.
See - http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3398971
Basing science on a penguin cartoon is Bushesque.
Give me strength!
To see more on the Bush legacy change the last number in the above http address from a 1 to a 3.
cd-editor
http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_3036569
Kirby asked the correct question!
cd-editor
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/books/review/18schlesinger.html
The above link speaks of the false idea that there is innocence in America's religion, politics, and life.
We have never been an innocent nation.
History is blemished with genocide, slavery, war and greed.
Current events are blemished by war, injustice, bigotery, and greed.
Genocide and slavery are still present but not so obvious. Today cultural genocide is an American institution and economic slavery has shown it's ugly head in New Orleans.
Religion has proved itself a facilatator rather than a corrector of these evolutionary traits.
The rejection by religion that man is an evolutionary creature prevents humanity from seeing it's inherent nature and looking for a solution rather than praying for a solution.
Too many people pray rather than act.
You can pray for justice until the end of time, but injustice will prevail.
Action through a righteous government is the only solution.
The less government theory is flawed because good intentioned people cannot sustain their efforts; that effort requires the direction of a just and encompassing governing body that spreads the burden among all it's citizens.
This could be described as a form of governmental insurance. The insurance principle is based on spreading out the risk to a point that no one individual or group is expected to be responsible in solving society's problems.
President Bush had us all take a moment yesterday to pray for the people on the Gulf Coast. It appears to me that action is about three weeks short.
There are still people,especially in small towns along the coast, living with no shelter, clean water or food.
If a man ask for bread, don't respond with a prayer.
cd-editor
HoustonChronicle.com - Pat Robertson calls for Chavez's assassination
It is this kind of conservative Christianity that nullifies any good that can come from the conservative right.
Let's see if our President denounces this type of crusade for God.
cd-editor
It is not the few thousand fundamentalists break-a-ways that should cause concern in the Mormon church. They have been with us since 1830.
It is the loss of the liberal educated members that will have a lasting effect on the viability of the Mormon church.
The leadership cannot continue to ignore the march of science and the revelations of history and hope to maintain a growing, vibrant and enlightened membership.
Religious organizations have a history of becoming symbols rather than homes for it's members.
What good is a religion that teaches proper principles and ignores the facts of science and history?
Members do not look for a new direction in life as long as there is faith in the leadership.
The oldest Christian church has had the problem of leaders that refused to see new truths as they have become available to it's members.
Now most of the members are members in name only.
Sainthood of leaders is a mockery of the goodness of God.
When members put their leaders on a pedestal and refuse to question their doctrinal flaws, that leads to a false doctrine and false doctrine leads to a member in name only.
cd-editor
Design for Confusion - New York Times
I didn't know if I should list this article under science, religion or politics.
I guess the correct listing would be fear mongering.
The religious right will do anything to preserve the inerrant bible, even make up facts.
If you don't believe that just read all the past evidence of "proofs" of the flood, the sun standing still for two days, Jesus's haploid birth, Adam and Eve being the parents of all living, even the "fact" that man has been on the earth for less than six thousand years.
The "fact" that Tom DeLay is a believer is enough to make me an agnostic.
cd-editor
There is a interesting relationship between Islam and Mormonism.
The tie is Arianism.
Arianism is considered the first widespread Christian heresy.
The concept that Jesus is not homogamous as described in the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is of Arian origin.
Mohammed and Joseph Smith based their doctrine on the same Arian concept with some variation.
The death vows of both religions also have Arian facets.
It is interesting that the Gothic heathens of first millennial Christianity were confirmed Arians and practiced similar ritual oaths.
I find it interesting that three different religious founders came up with similar doctrines independently.
cd-editor
This guy is becoming the Will Rogers of our generation.
He tells it like it is and makes you laugh while he is doing it.
God Bless Robert Kirby
cd-editor
A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage - New York Times
When you believe that there is only one true religion, there is no way to go but down.
Thinking that you have the expressed approval of God in all your actions that conform to your religious doctrine is a recipe for bigotry.
Telling youself and others that you are God's chosen people is failure in mental reality.
I cannot think of one fundalmentalist religion that has not, at one time or another, committed atrocities in the name of God.
When anyone supports a religion that teaches these types of doctrinal superiority, they are in fact supporting a form of religious terrorism.
cd-editor
This subject of answered prayers has bothered me for a long time.
I have about come to the conclusion that the answer or not is in our own mind.
If we attribute all the good to God, then I think we also have to blame him for, at least, some of the bad.
The example that Kirby uses in this article is heart wrenching.
I once attended a stake conference where a church leader said that homosexuality in young men was due to the failure of the father to set a good example.
I saw indescribable pain in the eyes of some fathers in the congregation, after that statement.
I spent many hours counseling heartbroken fathers to the fallacy of that statement.
The starting point in this counseling was the fact that church leaders are often mistaken in their beliefs. That is a hard pill to swallow for a good member of the church.
It is no wonder that people make statements about God's goodness in the face of other's pain.
Church leaders ignore that dichotomy because there is no answer that leaves God without blame.
The devil comes in handy, but that is a poor answer because he is a creation of God.
We tend to be non-thinkers when it comes to the subject of religion. That is a shame because it is one of the most important decisions in our life.
cd-editor
New Group May Spark Presbyterian Split - Yahoo! News
Actually this is probably the best thing that could happen to the Presbyterian Church.
It has got to the point where liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye.
The first tenet of the New Wineskin Group, the infallible bible will prevent most liberal thinking people from ever accepting this group.
Anyone that knows just a little biblical history will never accept the infallible bible.
John Lindsay, do you have any input to add to this discussion that will enlighten the readers?
cd-editor
This one requires a little more thought.
cd-editor
Deep, Dark Secrets of His and Her Brains - Yahoo! News
This area of research makes the "gospel so simple that even a child can understand" a difficult concept to discern.
How can God demand obedience to laws that appear to be a respector of persons?
It appears that divine design need a bit of divine intervention.
cd-editor
Studies Rebut Earlier Report on Pledges of Virginity - New York Times
Are they questioning the study that says that teenagers have given up sex?
When someone says that they will not have sex, I think, that if they are not 65 years old, they are lying.
Teenagers and sex is like apple pie and icecream.
If both are near each other, it happens.
cd-editor
Even the dumb cop has trouble with Adam and Eve.
I vote to sustain Kirby as Prophet in October.
cd-editor
God has always done things in a big way and I guess when he builds a mall, make that two malls, that are as one in purpose, he don't want to be seen as cheap.
Remember none of the purposed ONE BILLION DOLLARS is tithing funds because the right hand hath no idea what the left hand doeth.
That sound kinda scriptural.
Bishop H. David Burton is the same guy I wrote complaining about the fact that the church doesn't pay it's custodians a living wage. He told me to not worry about it because the Prophet had approved the pay scale. I guess that makes it ok.
So I will assume that the Prophet has approved this mall and the expenditures of ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
I also assume this is what Jesus would have done if he had ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
cd-editor
I would like for you to consider the subject of The Law of Tithing as being of human construction.
I understand this will be a controversial subject, but I have come to the conclusion that an all knowing God would not have instituted such a law.
Lets just look at the math in a simple example.
Setting arbitrary figures of $10,000 as being a minimum living wage for the necessities of life; consider the effect of tithing on that income.
$10,000 X 10%= $1000 tithing
This leaves a family with a $10,000 annual income a $1000 deficit for the necessities of life.
If another family has $100,000 in annual income, their net for living expenses is $90,000.
This is by definition a regressive tax that has uneven effects on individuals of potentially equal worthiness.
If God made this law, would he not be a respecter of persons?
If the reward of greater sacrifice is on the otherside of the vail, then would God still not be a respecter of persons by penalizing the rich?
I suggest to you that the Law of Tithing is a device of men to aquire gain.
Has God personally spent one dollar of tithing funds? No
Therefore, the money is used to sustain church officials, build and maintain buildings, missionary work, care for the poor, teaching materials and other such activities as necessary to project a religious endeavor.
The maintenance of church leaders is only possible as long as they maintain a system that convinces the body of the church that it is an organization directed by God or at least of good report.
Are the individuals that collect the tithing, the same ones that wrote the scriptures that requires you to pay tithing? I say yes.
Do these same individuals use coercion to encourage you to pay tithing? Yes
Those that do not pay tithing are denied some form of fellowship or live under some threats of condemnation.
Do members need all the assets that tithing provides them? No
You could set up an exclusive country club minus the ministers and have all the amenities of a church, plus golf, and do all this for less money.
Is it true that certain structures are necessary for saving ordinances? No
All ordinances that have been said to require a special structure have been performed outside of those structures.
Last question to support my argument.
Do you have some facts to support the divinity of tithing other than your testimony?
cd-editor
The push by the evangelical right to turn the Air Force Academy into a Christian wing of the Christian right is just a high profile symptom of the cankerous sore that is infecting America.
The Sunday edition of the Texarkana Gazette had a six page insert on the Commandments of God as described in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
It contained all the ones you would expect: Love God, Don't steal, Honor parents, etc... It stated that if you don't follow these commandments, you will surely go to hell.
Of course they left out the most important commandments to the people at the time: Kill all unbelievers, right to own slaves, a man must be paid for his work daily, don't eat fruit until tree is 5 years old, eat nothing with blood, can't trim hair or beard, anyone that curses his father shall be put to death, stone the mentally ill to death, etc.... I suspect if you do follow all of God's commandments you will go to hell or will already be there.
The selective reading of the commandments of God allows one to make up their own religion to suit their own moral and mental weaknesses.
It is this ability to set one's own standards, that makes this move to turn America into a theological state, so worrisome.
This Christian army does not have the constitutional right to set the standard for a secular America, no matter which judge thats put into the judgement seat.
All God fearing, righteous, thinking people(being one, two or all three) need to stand up now and stop this cancerous spreading bigotry.
cd-editor
I understand that this is just this guy's opinion, testimony or understanding.
I also understand that people will read this and it will strengthen their testimony of "intelligent design".
The problem with this "theory", an I use the word loosely, is where did the designer get the knowledge to design the world that is too complex to evolve.
Would that be God? Is that not religion?
"The diagnosis for this intellectual crippling is clear: if the effects of the gene must, on theological grounds, be zero, then all nonzero values are equivalently heretical".(The Blank Slate pg 378)
Intelligent Design is the means of sustaining the Book of Genesis which is the basis of Christanity.
cd-editor
This should be an interesting year as we take an in-depth look at the history of Brother Joseph.
cd-editor
Why do we choose to live a moral life as individuals?
Is it religion or biology?
Religion of course!, you say.
Let me ask you a question.
If God commanded you to be cruel and selfish, what would you do?
If you choose kind and sharing, then would it not be biology, if man has been selected by evolutionary processes that select traits that cause reproductive success due to multiplication of efforts of community?
Do I hear you saying that God would never command one to be cruel and selfish?
Do you own a set of scriptures and have you read them?
The history of religion has shown that God has commanded man to do all manner of cruel and selfish acts.(You don't need me to list them for you, do you?)
Old Testament you say.
I consider it cruel and unusual punishment to allow people to die from hepatitis and Parkinson's disease when a cure may be available from stem cell research.
Did God make the ban on stem cell research because it uses little balls of cells that have made the ontological leap to spiritual souls?
I guess you could say that if people stopped believing in divine retribution they would do evil with impunity. Yes, if nonbelievers thought that they could elude the legal system, the approbrium of their communities, and their own consciences, they would not be deterred by the threat of spending eternity in hell. But they would also not be tempted to massacre thousands of people by the promise of spending eternity in heaven.
Aleksandr Solzenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago, - Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble - and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses, because they had no ideology.
Think about it.
Concepts and some quotes from Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.
cd-editor
Book Review:
The End Of Faith - Religion, Terror. and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris,
W. W. Norton & Co. publisher, 336 pages, $24.95 ($16.95 Amazon)
If you are a member of a book club-reading group with courage, I suggest you pick this book as your next selection. There is the danger, that your group will no longer exist after the discussion of this book.
This book is written by a philosopher from Stanford University that is completing his doctorate in neuro-science.
He has written a book that will make you consider a paradigm shift in your opinion concerning religion.
A few excerpts to stir your interest:
pg. 170 - When was the last time that someone was criticized for not "respecting" another person's unfounded beliefs about physics or history? The same rules should apply to ethical, spiritual,and religious beliefs as well.
pg. 173 - The problem of vindicating an omnipotent and omniscient God in the face of evil is insurmountable. Those who claim to have surmounted it, by recourse to notions of free will and other incoherences, have merely heaped bad philosophy onto bad ethics. Surely there must come a time when we will acknowledge the obvious: theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance.
pg. 134- As long as it is acceptable for a person to believe that he knows how God wants everyone on earth to live, we will continue to murder one another on account of our myths.
Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous.(Will Durant)
cd-editor
This should hit your tickle nerve.
cd-editor
Kirby carries his cross with verve.
cd-editor
HoustonChronicle.com - Elective Bible class added to Odessa curriculum
Is it possible that 6000 citizens of Odessa have signed this petition because they want the opportunity for their kids to study the Bible as literature?
Will a Christian lie to protect their religion?
You bet!
This could backfire.
Once the writings of the Bible are compared to those of Shakespeare, Homer, and James Joyce, how are they going to explain the fact that those writers are better than an omnipotent God?
What will be the qualifications to teach this class?
What a can of worms hath God opened?
What will be used to compare the story of Adam and Eve with modern literature, Alice In Wonderland?
Is this an indictment that says that Christians are simple minded?
cd-editor
Salt Lake Tribune - Salt Lake Tribune Home Page
I think I understand why Utah has such a high level of depression and suicide.
It is hard being perfect.
The mental health providers can beat around the bush all they want, but I suggest that they know the real cause of this depression, but being good Mormons makes it hard to say the words.
What is unique about Utah if it is not the church culture?
The brethren have been aware of this problem, especially for Sister Molly Mormon, for years.
I attended church seminars in the 70's on this very subject.
The sad part of all this is the perfection syndrome is inherent to the church culture and who can change that?
Next topic is what percentage of missionaries are on prozac?
I have some insider information that this is a very common prescription for full time missionaries.
Mormons need to learn to not take this perfection idea to extremes.
Of course the other problem is, what Mormon thinks for himself?
cd-editor
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time
I encourage everyone to watch is program. If it is as bigoted as suggested in this article, I hope it turns true Christians to rebellion against the "moral" right.
cd-editor
Another one from Zylksburg.
This coon-ass is becoming my kind of guy.
cd
An honest man was being tailgated by a stressed out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him.
He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.
The tailgating woman hit the roof, and the horn, screaming in Frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection. As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up Into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her To exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, finger printed, photographed, and placed in a holding cell.
After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting Officer was waiting with her personal effects.
He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. "I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker,
the 'Follow Me to Sunday-School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk.
Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car."
Pope Benedict XVI has stated that he will plot a course for the church and Christianity away from relativism. By taking this course, he wants to strengthen church doctrine and even if this means a smaller church, it will be a stronger church.
President Bush has said that the new pope is a man of wisdom.
Even with this august endorsement, I suspect that the honeymoon will be short. The label of wisdom will come or not with time.
I agree that the new pope is a man of intellect. It is said that he speaks ten languages and is a pundit of church doctrine.
He has also stated a goal of unification of all Christains.
It would appear from those two statements on relativism and unification that he is also naive.
I suspect that observation is incorrect.
I also suspect that he is a student of Niccolo Machiavelli, and in so being is well acquainted with The Prince.
His wisdom will be exhibited on how well he projects the princely qualities of pity, trustworthiness, humanity, religion and integrity while retaining the governing qualities of a spirit disposed to shift as the winds of fortune and the variability of things command; and, not to depart from good, whenever possible, but to know to enter into evil whenever necessary.
These traits seem to have served all leaders both religious and secular very well through out history. Those that make efforts to choose only truth, virture and Godliness have been sacrificed on the alter of reality.
cd-editor
Salt Lake Tribune - Salt Lake Tribune Home Page
When you consider some important issues in both Judism and Mormonism, this meeting and discussion is both silly and naive.
Silly because why should a Jewish person be concerned about Mormon vicarious baptisms if they think the doctrine is not valid. If it is valid and the acceptance is voluntary on the other side of the vail, then what is the problem? Are they suggesting that those that are dead are being forced to join the Mormon Church by God or dread the thought by the devil, as was the case during medieval crusades?
It is naive to think that just because the names are removed from the IGI, the Mormon Church does not consider these vicarious baptisms valid.
There have been thousands of vicarious baptisms and sealings that are not recorded in public records, yet are considered to be in force.
Just ask Old George Washington, who had no legitimate offspring?
For the Mormon Church to suggest that this practice is not accepted doctrine is like saying we have not in the past, present or future believed in blood atonement.
As per President Hinckley, I will tell you what you want to hear and we will do what ever we want to do.
MINNEAPOLIS (Jan. 13, 2004) -- Twice as many Americans believe it is more important to volunteer one's time than give money to charity, according to a nationwide Thrivent Financial for Lutherans survey. The survey also found Americans' relationship to faith groups and faith practices dramatically influences Americans' giving of time and money to nonprofit organizations. Support of nonprofit organizations is primarily driven by Americans' belief in the organization's mission, the survey revealed.
Half (50 percent) of Americans believe that giving one¡¦s time is more important than giving money. Twenty-two percent say money is the most important gift to charitable causes while 23 percent say time and money are equally important.
Young adults, aged 18-34, and seniors, aged 65 and older, hold decidedly different views about the importance of volunteerism. While 58 percent of young adults say giving time to a charitable cause is most important, just 28 percent of seniors agree. Conversely, 29 percent of seniors say "money" is the most important gift one can give to a charitable organization, while 23 percent of young adults and 18 percent of those aged 35-49 agree.
Despite their different perspectives, young Americans and seniors volunteered in 2003 at about the same level. Forty-four percent of young adults reported they had volunteered with a nonprofit, school or church over the past 12 months, while 39 percent of seniors did so. This compares with 54 percent of those aged 35-49 and 52 percent of those aged 50-64.
"This research suggests that there's an emotional, visceral connection to volunteering that just cannot be duplicated by writing a check," said Brad Hewitt, Thrivent Financial senior vice president of charitable programs and volunteerism. "Smart nonprofits can tap the goodwill of the American public by offering opportunities for their supporters to gain new experiences and develop relationships while doing good for others."
Volunteerism tends to increase with income and education levels, as well. Two-thirds (67 percent) of college graduates reported volunteering in the past 12 months compared with 35 percent who have a high school diploma or less. Similarly, 62 percent of those earning $75,000 or more reported volunteering compared with 30 percent of those earning less than $20,000, 40 percent of those earning $20,000 to $34,999, 52 percent of those earning $35,000 to $49,999, and 54 percent of those earning $50,000 to $74,999.
A Matter of Faith
Those committed to prayer and regular attendance at religious services are most likely to report having volunteered with a non-profit organization, church or school during the past 12 months. Below is the percentage of Americans who have volunteered in the past 12 months among those who:
* Pray daily (58 percent)
* Pray frequently (39 percent)
* Rarely or never pray (28 percent)
* Attend religious services weekly (66 percent)
* Attend religious services once or twice a month (47 percent)
* Attend religious services a few times a year (36 percent)
* Never attend religious services (25 percent)
Those who pray and attend religious services also reported that they are more likely to increase the amount of money they will donate in 2004 to nonprofit organizations. While 22 percent of all respondents said they planned on giving more to nonprofit organizations in 2004, 30 percent of those who attended religious services every week said they would do so versus 12 percent of those who never attend services. Similarly, 25 percent of those who pray every day reported that they will donate more money in 2004 versus 17 percent of those whom rarely or never pray.
Faith Groups Receive Financial Support
Faith groups -- churches and synagogues -- are most likely to receive financial support from Americans. Fifty-seven percent of all Americans say they financially support faith groups. Pre-retirees, aged 50-64, are most likely to give to faith groups while young Americans, aged 18-34, are least likely to do so (66 percent versus 48 percent). Women are slightly more likely than men to give money to faith groups (62 percent versus 53 percent), while those in the South (62 percent) are slightly more likely than those in the Northeast (50 percent), West (54 percent) or Midwest (59 percent) to fund faith groups.
Other types of charitable organizations that Americans report funding include:
* Schools, colleges and universities (33 percent)
* Medical research (30 percent)
* Social service organizations (27 percent)
* United Way (27 percent)
* Environmental organizations (17 percent)
* Political organizations (12 percent)
* Arts organizations (11 percent).
Every type of tax-exempt organization saw a decline in the percentage of Americans providing them financial support in 2003 compared to five years earlier (1998), with the exception of political organizations, which held steady at 12 percent. Support for the United Way declined 13 percentage points from 1998 to 2003 (40 percent versus 27 percent) while support for arts organizations declined just 3 percentage points.
Fourteen percent of Americans said they do not give money to charitable organizations.
Mission Matters Most
Belief in an organization¡¦s mission is the driving force behind Americans¡¦ charitable giving. Americans reported the following reasons for giving money to nonprofit organizations:
* Belief in the organization¡¦s mission (76 percent)
* Religious beliefs (39 percent)
* Always have/tradition (21percent)
* Tax deduction (7 percent)
* Work/peer pressure (5 percent)
Those earning $75,000 or more were most likely to give for the tax deduction (15 percent) and due to the organization¡¦s mission (88 percent). Rural residents were most apt to give to charity because of their religious beliefs (47 percent).
"Americans are increasingly interested in values-driven organizations," said Hewitt. "Regardless of whether they choose to support these charitable causes through financial gifts or through the gift of time, Americans can do more through focused planning that frees dollars and hours for the organizations they care about."
Just an observation.
Since it's beginning in the 1800's the Salt Lake Tribune has been the other voice in the Salt Lake valley. The other voice is now on life support and in danger of entering a persistent vegetative state.
Historically the paper has been owned by one family of Catholics that have stood up to the Mormon Church's efforts to control the information available to readers in the inter-mountain West.
About three years ago, the heirs lost a battle to keep the paper and it was aquired by a group from Colorado. The "drift" is that the Colorado group has titular control and the power behind the acquisition was the Mormon Church.
Evidence to support this idea includes the fact that both papers are now printed by the same company, the Tribune agreed to allow the church paper to publish a morning edition, breaking a past contractual agreement, the historical writer of the Tribune was fired after writing a book that was critical of some early Mormon prophets and the "character" of the stories has changed as can be seen by reading several of the stories in today's edition.
With the Salt Lake Tribune losing its "voice" it has become more difficult to understand what is really going on in Utah.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has every right to publish Pravda (a.k.a. The Deseret News), but if in fact, they control the information disseminated by the Salt Lake Tribune that fact should be known to its readers.
Oh well, there is still Sunstone.
cd-editor
That is the question.
I vote not to mall.
Lets turn down town into a showcase of Christian charity. Soup kitchens, low cost housing, free medical clinics, employment for the hard to place worker.
If you think Jesus would have built malls that cater to the rich and famous, you are reading a different book than me.
Is there any true Christian that can support this activity that shuns the poor and provides housing and stores for people in the six figure income range?
Salt Lake Tribune - Salt Lake Tribune Home Page
Looks like a temple to me. In fact much like the Kirtland temple.
I wonder if this will turn out like Missouri?
The results of the poll of the question - Do We Have The Right To Question or Judge God's Actions - are as follows:
6 yes
8 no
1 could be
1 doesn't matter
I am surprised that the voting was basically even.
I think that I will qualify the question by suggesting that the laws attributed to God are either partially or totally the social construction of man. (This assumption is made with the understanding that the question is taking for granted that there is a God. That can be a discussion for another time.)
The evidence that I put forth about social construction is based on the fact that
what one prophet says today is contradicted by another prophet tomorrow. If God's laws are perfect then they should be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Why should a perfect being, the definition of God accepted by most believers, issue imperfect laws? One can look at the entire list of purported laws of God and it is nearly impossible to find consistency. This, in my humble opinion, must indicate that the laws have originated from imperfect man.
Examples:
Thou shall not kill
Stone to death adulterers, those that follow a false god
Ask anything in my name and it shall be given you
Prayers not answered
Don't preach for money - unpaid clergy
All upper level clergy are paid in every religious denomination
No poor among us
Poor are everywhere
The Law of Common Consent
Has now become the Law of Sustaining
Don't drink coffee or tea
But cocoa has the same harmful chemicals
If God has the persona of the omni's - omnific, omnipotence, omnipresent, omniscience - why then does he repent, change his mind, or express disappointment in man?
Could it be that man has made God in his image?
If God wants us to know his laws, I am sure that he has the ability to make them known to us in a much more dramatic fashion without going through some impotent intermediary.
If you answer the above question by stating that he is instilling faith, I beg to differ. Faith is defined as the hope for things not seen, that are true. Laws must be seen and digested to be useful.
All that seek enlightment, read and comment to strengthen the understanding of all that read this website.
cd-editor
I am conducting a poll to determine if I want to broach this subject with the readers of the Bloomburg Democrat.
The question is - Do we have the right to question or judge God's actions?
I will reveal the results of the poll Sunday.
If there is no interest in the subject or if everyone is in agreement, then I will not open a discussion of the subject. If there appears to be some confusion or disagreement, then I suspect it will be an interesting subject for discussion.
cd-editor
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: What's Going On?
Onward Christian Soldiers has moved from a rally cry to the faithful to that of a threat to civil society.
The devil may be dangerous but he can't hold a light to a determined religionists that has a direct pipeline to the thinking of God.
By definition we expect bad things from the devil, therefore we tend to be protected by the knowledge of his intent.
But we expect good things from the followers of God and that is what initiated the comment of Jesus to be watchful for wolves in sheep clothing.
Those powerful Christian soldiers that can destroy and kill from a distance are the most dangerous. The anti-abortionists that shoots the doctor is dangerous, but of little danger to society in general. It is the God directed individuals that can order mass destruction and murder from thirty thousand feet that is the most dangerous to civilization.
You don't need me to name names, you know their names. They are on the front page of your newspaper every morning. Anyway, I wouldn't want to leave anyone out that has touched your conscience.
cd-editor
Salt Lake Tribune - Salt Lake Tribune Home Page
It's time to see your Bishop for a current temple recommend and pick out another wife.
cd-editor
The sins of biblical Israel were idolatry and injustice.
The sins of Bush America are idolatry and injustice.
Remember God is just. What he does to one he will do to another.
Need I say more.
cd-editor
Mainstream anthropologists and archaeologists consider the genetic, linguistic, and cultural evidence for a primary Siberian origin of the Amerindians.
We have discussed genetic evidence in past articles; now I would like you to consider linguistic evidence of this Siberian origin of the Amerindians.
The languages sets of the Americas consists as follows:
Algonquian
Athabaskan
Mobilian
Taino (Arawak)
Uto-Aztecan
Chibchan
Quechuan
Language of the Pueblo (Keres, Towa, Tewa)
Of these ten(10) language families, there are seventy(70) subset unique languages of the Western Hemisphere that appear to be of Siberian origin. These subsets can be broken down into seven hundred and thirty-seven (737) dialects.
In North America there are forty(40) isolated languages that appear to be unique to a certain tribe; yet they still fall under the Siberian Group.
This process of developing unique languages has occurred over tens of thousands of years. There is archaeological evidence that the Western Hemisphere has been inhabited by Homo sapiens for at least fifteen thousand(15,000)years and maybe as much as thirty-eight thousand (38,000) years.
It would be expected that this long time frame would be necessary to develop seven hundred and thirty-seven(737) different dialects.
This evidence strongly suggest a Northeastern Asian origin of the Amerindian.
There has been some discussion that the Amerindian is of Semitic origin.
Lets look at the linguistics of the Semitic people.
The Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) languages are a language family of about 240 languages and of two hundred, eighty (280) million people of Africa and South West Asia.
The Semitic languages are a Northeastern subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic languages and the only family of the group spoken in Asia. This would tend to indicate that the Semitic people originated in North Africa.
The subsets of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages that are spoken by the people of historically biblical areas are:
Canaanite languages
Ammonite
Moabite
Edomite
Biblical Hebrew
Phoenician (Punic)
Aramaic
Syriac
Mandaic
Ugaritic
Amorite
There has been no evidence that the people of the Western Hemisphere have linguistic similarities to those of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages.
Even though some dialects and subset languages become extinct, there is no evidence that this occurs in language family groups.
Evidence indicates that Homo had migrated out of Africa before a sustainable language was developed. That would explain the different family groups of languages and also help to determine the migration patterns of humanity.
Is it possible that a Semitic group migrated to the New World in 600 BCE, built a large civilization over the course of more than a thousand(1000) years and left no evidence of their language?
I guess possible but not plausible.
References:
The Book of Mormon
Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2004
Wikipedia.com
Ancient Encounters by James C. Chatters
The Journey From Eden by Brian M. Fagan
The Indians of Texas by W. W. Newcomb, Jr.
American Indian Myth and Legend by Erdoe & Ortiz
cd-editor
This would sound good to me, if I could hear it.
I thank the Lord that I can no longer hear the music in our ward.
Gladys may make me want to get a hearing aid.
I keep telling everyone "that this to shall pass".
Well it's finally happening in a small way.
Does this mean that President Hinckley likes grits and turnip greens?
cd
Yahoo! News - Vatican University Debuts Satanism Classes
Is Satan a thing or a thought?
cd
The Bush Budget has an increase of 3X the funds for it's abstinence only program.
That would be just fine with me if the program didn't block the teaching of contraception and safe sex.
By refusing to allow the teaching of safe sex it is opening the door to disease, pregnancy, and an increase in abortions.
60% of U.S. teenagers have sex before reaching their 18th birthday. That is not shocking, failing to teach them safe sex is shocking.
Having served in church leadership positions for 13 years, I heard all the sad stories from the youth concerning their sexual transgressions. If Mormon youth still fornicate after all the preaching they hear about abstinence, before marriage, by family and religious leaders then it seems to me that this is not a very successful program.
I do agree that some kids listen, but we need to teach other aspects to those that don't.
Ignorance is the curse of God,
Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.
(Shakespeare)
To keep kids in ignorance will definitely bring forth the curse of God.
cd-editor
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: God and Evolution
This should keep preachers up at night.
Some interesting correlation in this article.
Yet the jury is still out and will be for some time.
cd-editor
No doubt about it Robert Kirby was abused as a kid.
cd-editor
Psychologist Carl Jung once said that a great deal of institutional religion seems designed to prevent the faithful from having a spiritual experience. Instead of teaching people how to live in peace, religious leaders often concentrate on marginal issues: Can women or gay people be ordained as priest or rabbis? Is contraception permissible? Is evolution compatible with the first chapter of Genesis? Instead of bringing people together , these distracting preoccupations actually encourage policies of exclusion, since they tend to draw attention to the differences between "us" and "them".
Karen Armstrong from March/April issue of AARP magazine
The following is an excerpt from the 2004 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium with the Introduction by Holly Welker. (In parenthesis, my thoughts)
Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby points out that in all likelihood Jesus was a Pharisee (religious training, access to temple, called a rabbi) and could well have belonged to the school of Rabbi Hillel. a prominent Pharisee who had lived half a century or so before Jesus. As evidence of this association, Maccoby notes that Jesus had , after all, taught a version of Hillel's Golden Rule and relates this anecdote:
Some pagans came to Hillel and told him that they would convert to his faith if he could recite the whole of Jewish teachings while he stood on one leg. So Hillel obligingly stood on one leg like a stork and said, " Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you, That is the Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and learn it."
When Maccoby was ask, "No official theology? How can you be religious without a set of ideas- about God, salvation and so on - as a basis."
He replied, " We have orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy. Right practice rather than right belief. That's all. You Christians make such a fuss about theology, but it is just not important in the way you think. It's just poetry, really, ways of talking about the inexpressible. We Jews don't bother much about what we believe, we just do it instead."
"Religion is not about accepting twenty impossible propositions before breakfast, but about doing things that change you" (for the better).
(It is like the old Jewish saying, Gag on a gnat and swollow a camel. We accept biblical stories - Noah and the flood, Jonah and the whale, tower of Babel, virgin birth, Adam & Eve less than six thousand years ago - but we ignore the laws of caring for the poor, loving our enemy, and living in peace and harmony.
That is practicing orthodoxy and fleeing from orthopraxy.)
(We require our church leaders to feed us fables, and they oblige, because we gag on the truth.)
cd-editor
HoustonChronicle.com - Vatican updates rules on marriage annulment
There is a problem here and to not comprehend this problem would require one to be old and celibate.
To say that a marriage that lasted for years was never a marriage is rife with doctrinal hypocrisy.
The Catholic Church is not the only one to have serious doctrinal errors when compared with Christian scripture.
I am not making a case for scriptural inerrancy, but when a church uses the New Testament for doctrine and does not issue an edict correcting that doctrine, then it must be assumed by the members that the doctrine is accepted as true.
Look at Luke 16:18 (Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.)
I once queried a General Authority(Holland) about this scripture and he stated that this is accepted doctrine in the church because it is spoken by "He who makes no mistakes".
I then ask about "Cancellation of Sealings" and he said "it is to keep the natives from being restless". I then ask how he would counsel his son on the matter and he said,"I would advise him to not marry a divorced woman."
If Christian churches believe that this is true doctrine, then how can it be overlooked when the sin of adultery assigns one to a lesser kingdom in heaven?
Do leaders allow these actions to go unanswered to prevent disunity in the church at the peril of their members salvation or is this just a manmade law that has no eternal repercussions?
I would think this is important, but maybe numbers are more important.
Do any of you have an answer to this paradox.
Yahoo! News - Texas Teens Increased Sex After Abstinence Program
Children in Texas can't even spell abstinence much less live it.
This is religion and not science.
People live religious prinicples because they believe that it is required by a higher power; not because some teacher tells them it is right.
Actually, I suspect this program may make it easier for the youth to be sexually active because it removes the aura of religion and replaces it with grown-up mores
cd-editor
I haven't heard this story, but it is a good one and I know it is true.
cd
All families with which I am familiar will have to consider their response when confronted with the events described in this essay.
When someone challanges your heart felt beliefs, you have two options: attack or understand.
It is very difficult to understand if you are intolerant, closed-minded and unbending to new information and ideas.
"I know and I believe" are like Mars and Venus.
"I know" is the root of war.
"I believe" leaves an opening for understanding.
When "I knew" I was intolerant to my extended family that "Did not know".
Too soon old and too late smart.
How does one move from "I know" to "I believe"?
It is really pretty easy!
Just open your mind to the fact that you don't know.
But you say, "I do know."
My question to you is, "Have you ever known something and later found out that it wasn't true?"
If that has happened only one time, then you have to consider that it might happen again.
I am not saying everything that you know is false only that one must be open-minded enough to realize that some of the things we know may not be as we preceive them.
Family and social relationships are difficult enough without us driving a wedge between them.
If you can, be Christ-like and love your enemy, even if the enemy is a new understanding.
cd-editor
Hi, my name is Clifton Daniels and I am an idiot.
He's right that is liberating.
cd
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Leaving the Brothel Behind
This is a very gut wretching article.
It gives me the desire to help in some way.
Then I reconsider.
Can I solve even one of these problems?
Probably not.
What responsibilities do we have to the world's problems? With the disaster in Asia and the wars in the Middle East, the hunger in Central and South America, the relative poverty in the U.S., what can we really do?
Not much.
We like to kid ourselves by giving to aid programs; then falling back into the same old routine of American extravagance.
Big problems require big solutions. These big solutions can only come from big government.
Government is the only entity that can redistribute the wealth of a nation.
Yet in the United States, the availability of public funds for poor families with small children decreased substantially every year in the decades after 1981.
I am not saying that government is efficient in this endeavor. I am just saying it is the only way to have true success in covering the cost of aid.
I don't deny that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others like it have some success, but their billions are in reality a drop in the bucket.
We feel good when we make a one time donation to tsunami aid, but us feeling good is not the solution.
Solving the world's problems are like losing weight; it requires a change in life style.
We, the richest people on the earth, are not ready for this sacrifice.
How do I know?
See how we vote.
We use Christianity as a hoax.
We concern ourselves with moral problems and ignore physical needs.
We withhold funds for population control and then refuse to feed the masses.
God Help Us!
But don't ask me to repent just yet.
cd-editor
The only difference I see between Utah and the rest of the U.S. is the church culture.
The idea that if I pay my tithing God will take care of the rest is coming come to roost.
You also see this ouside of Utah in church members.
An interesting study would be to rank bankruptcy as to religious affiliation.
cd-editor
One of these days an investigative reporter will figure out how to crack open the shenanigans going on in the church building department and it will make Enron look like a Sunday School picnic.
This mess has been going on since 1830.
I would give my right arm to be able to sit in on meetings that determine who is allowed to bid on church projects.
Protection of sacred money is an insider joke that really means, "My brother-in-law needs the money so that he can send his kids to Harvard".
Am I angry, you bet! I have seen the waste and graft and felt hopeless. I truly felt I was suppose to protect and spend the Lord's money wisely. Naive I am, stupid I'm not.
cd-editor
HoustonChronicle.com - Pope sets sights on 'challenges of life' issues
Being a good catholic, I agree with the Pope that we need to care for the poor.
I also agree that Iraq was a mistake.
I am thankful that he did not say that God told him that his thoughts on scientific issues were directives from on high. I do suppose that this could be your conclusion, since he speaks for God.
But past history should show that he does not always get the translation correct.
I am not making these statements to condemn John Paul II, they apply to all men that say, "So saith the Lord".
I would like an explaination on his views of why God closed his eyes to the events in Asia.
Does nature over-rule God's power?
Does God speak to the heathens when they pray for knowledge?
Is the death of spiritual minors(under eight years of age), the shedding of innocent blood?
Does God selectively bless some and condemn others?
Come on Popes and Prophets, I want answers and not just "the mysteries of God" bs.
cd-editor
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Where Was God?
Mr. Safire has given the prophets an opportunity to come to the rescue of God, if they are so inclined.
One would think that the religionists would welcome the opportunity to respond to this article.
This gives them a world stage to explain the role of God in the life of man.
I look forward to this discussion.
If any readers of the Bloomburg Democrat see a response from church leaders, please let me know the source and I will provide a link to our readers.
cd-editor
Salt Lake Tribune - Salt Lake Tribune Home Page
Why ignore the facts? Utah has one unique cause of bankruptcy - tithing.
How do I know?
Because for years, I counselled members of the church that were in financial difficulty to first pay their tithing and if they had faith the Lord would take care of their financial needs.
Notice my statement may not protect the member from bankruptcy, but it protects the Lord by requiring the faith of the member for this plan to be successful.
It is easy to judge the success of this "tithing trial"
and place the burden on the member's faith.
I do claim some freedom from culpability because I was a true believer and probability more important , I used church funds to make sure their bills were paid. This was often done aganist direct orders from higher authorities.
It amazed me then and now, how solvent members were considered worthy and insolvent members were unworthy. But this concept doesn't take a great leap of understanding. If you live the gospel, God takes care of you and if you don't live the gospel, you are on your own.
This is self-incrimination at it's best.
Let's look at the facts;
If you are making less than $2000-$3000 a month, have four children, normal living expenses plus church donations(tithing, a generous fast offering, missionary expenses, boy scout camp fees, youth conferences, gifts to home teaching families, gas and meals for temple trips, etc.) it amazes me that the entire church membership hasn't filed Chapter 7.
I guess that the reason not is because they pay their tithing!
That just shows you that if you are going to pay your tithing, you had better be worthy or you will find yourself in deep financial trouble.
cd-editor
But wait, is that what you wanted me to do?
I guess I am living this life for you, vicariously. Isn't that the plan?
If this life is your plan then evil must be good, correct?
If sin is of celestial origin, does this mean it is divine or just feels divine?
As man is God once was
As God is man may become
I would assume that you committed sins while a man - does this include the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost? I decended below all things, so that I might rise above all things.(D&C 88:6) Does this mean physical or mental? But I guess that question is not relevant considering the Sermon on the Mount.
No wonder man has prayed for truth and light. This is very confusing. What was sin yesterday may not be sin today and vice versa.
The sins of the Old Testament were of a physical nature. The New Testament puts emphasis on those of a mental nature.
The OT told man how to act. The Sermon on the Mount told man how to feel.
Cain got in trouble because God was a carnivore.
Today Abel would be odd-man-out because God is a vegetarian.
Maybe he gave us all these ying-yang concepts, because he wants us to think.
But, does God have "wants"?
Do I need to decend below all things to be able to rise above all things? Oh my, I may be getting too old to decend that far. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Wait, I guess all I need to do is think sin and I accomplish the act.
But, I am not sure I can remember if I have already thought about all the sins. Repeaters may cause me to recrucify God, but I guess that is just fullfilling the law.
Pope Gregory(c.540-604) put all sin in seven catagories - envy, gluttony, lust, greed, anger, sloth, and pride.
I think I have all those covered, so I guess I am ready to meet my maker.
cd-editor
Courts, Abortion and Common Sense (washingtonpost.com)
At one time in my life, I thought that the sun rose and set with George Will.
Now it only sets.
George is not only redundant, he is prurient.
His statement - "That life begins at conception is a biological fact" is a confrication at best and considered scientifically irrational even by those that agree with his politics.
If a dividing cell is life, then 99.9% of all life on earth is not cognizant.
This fact makes the definition of life paramount.
Early Christianity is silent on the "sin" of abortion. Not because they were unaware of the event but because who in their right mind would indict God as the "Great Abortifacient? One third of all pregancies end in spontaneous abortion.
It is time to remove this debate from the pulpit and put it where it belongs - in the heart and mind of those most effected - the mother.
In this difficult decision, let her receive counsel from what ever source she feels comfortable. But lets not give a bunch of men that have proven themselves ungovernable that absolute authority.
cd-editor
HoustonChronicle.com - Four Israelis indicted in artifacts forgery ring
I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:
Isaiah 1:25
Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they do not do justice to the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
Isaiah 1:23
Do you notice how religion has the unique way of self indictment?
It appears that there is no better way to challenage a Christian's belief, than to quote scripture.
Look at the quote from the above article:
"Scholars said the forgers were exploiting the deep emotional need of Jews and Christians to find physical evidence to reinforce their beliefs."
I have often wondered why we have to create a false history to sustain our beliefs. Is this deep emotional need, as described above, because we want to be able to say "I know" when in fact we only "believe".
Testimonies based on emotional metaphysical evidence appear to leave us in a state of anxiety.
Is this what causes religion to turn to its old nemesis - science for proof?
What a paradox!
Maybe it is time to question all things.
For that to be possible in the case of religious investigation, I think we will have to seek a new paradigm when looking for truth in religion.
Can the questions of religion be answered by scientific scrutiny?
I believe that it may be possible if the correct method of examination can be found.
To automatically reject this possibility, suggest that believers are not open to the examination of their beliefs.
Two possible methods of scientifically examining religion might be:
Hypothesis (Abduction)
Induction
Hypothesis (Abduction) - a top down methodology. This method is based on looking at as many possibilities as one can imagine, deducing testable information, conducting the experiments, reject results that are not plausable and proceed with those that are plausable.
Induction- observations, experimentations, and analogy.
By observations, facts are distinctly and minutely impressed on the mind, by analogy, similar facts are connected. By experiment, new facts are discovered.
These two methods were borrowed from:
The Social Construction of What by Ian Hacking
"Truth is in the eye of the beholder" is not sufficient to allow us to say "I know".
cd
As a nation in the grips of a religious revival - both socially and politically - it might be the time to review some of the basic tenets that support this concept of a nation under God's direction.
Looking at just one aspect of this question - is the Constitution of the United States of America given to man by revelation from God?
Most fundamentalist religions in America teach the doctrine of a God inspired Constitution.
Does the Constitution as a document support that supposition?
Lets look at an example, that may bring into question the input from God.
" The most blatantly undemocratic feature of the document that the framers adopted in Philadelphia in 1787 was its acceptance - indeed, its enshrinement - of slavery, which in its American form was as vicious and repugnant as any institution ever devised by man. Article I, Section 9 forbade Congress to forbid the slave trade.....Article IV, Section 2 made the citizens of the 'free' states complicit in the crime by obliging them to return any runaway.....Most notoriously, under Article I, Section 2, a states allotment of seats in the House of Representatives was determined by counting not only 'free Persons' but also 'three fifths of all other persons'. This was simply diabolical, because to the insult of defining a person held in bondage as three-fifths of a human being it added the injury of using that definition to augment the political power of that person's oppressors."
Framed Up by Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker, July 29, 2002
Even though these two infamous Articles of the Constitution have a scriptural basis, does that give them validity?
Does the God that you believe in condone such conduct?
If your answer to the above question is yes, I seek another God.
If your answer to the above question is no, you should seek another revelator.
cd