Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[rcronk]

delusion - A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

Thanks.

I am holding to a belief that is unprovable through objective methods. I could list pages of my experiences where people have been cured of pot-smoking-induced lung cancer in minutes - coughing up blood and chunks of lung one minute, just fine the next - of many many other illnesses being cured in minutes - including infants, just to take placebo effect out of the picture - of the experience I mentioned about a thousand posts back dealing with Elder Lizarraga, receiving direct knowledge from God through prayer, and on and on and it would all be rejected here because it can't be proven scientifically. I accept that - I get it. But these are the sources of my holding fast to a belief that cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. I'm not blindly holding onto this belief - I have my own evidence that leads me to that belief and I'm aware of the dangers of not being able to detect deception objectively. Not being able to prove it objectively doesn't prove that it is false, but that's what's being said here. Because that is being said, I get called delusional.

Being called delusional and "not all there" is disappointing and arrogant. We disagree - is it impossible to disagree without name-calling?

 

[rcronk]

Let me offer a hypothetical. 4 individuals. Assume the Mormon Church is true.

Jason: Moral and decent Mormon who doesn't know that the Church is true but follows the church on faith that the Church is true. He remains faithful to the teachings of his Church until he dies.

Richard: Moral and decent Catholic who doesn't know that the Catholic Church isn't true but follows the teachings of the Catholic Church on faith that the Catholic Church is true. He remains faithful to the teachings of his Church until he dies. Richard has friends that are Mormon and has taken the lessons but has never had a desire to join.

Mark: Knows that the Mormon Church is true. He remains faithful to the teachings of his Church until he dies.

Mary: Atheist. Mary is a licensed therapist who has donated her time to provide counseling to prisoners. She serves, pro bono, as a board member for a philanthropic organization that raises money for community outreach programs including caring for the homeless.

What is the difference between these individuals?

Finding god doesn't reveal much of anything about a person. How a person lives his or her life is what reveals the character of a person.

I can't think of anything more beside the point than a religious institution.

ETA: One of these individuals is real. I know them and they were a big part of my becoming an atheist.

All of them could have great lives and learn a lot - this is true. The main difference comes with dealing with the effects of living in this world and being subject to the negative consequences of bad choices, etc.

Given the assumption that the Mormon church is true as you stated: Jason could turn away from that truth if his beliefs are challenged by imperfect human logic. I have been Jason. Richard would learn a lot about God and Christ and gain faith in them but would miss out on receiving the healing and saving ordinances that would allow him to have greater joy and progression in this life and in the life to come. I have talked personally to thousands of Richards about their faith and lives. Mark is less likely to fall away from the truth when his beliefs are challenged by imperfect human logic. I have been Mark. Mary would be in a similar position as Richard but without faith in God or Christ. I have been Mary - except that I was a boy and I wasn't as smart or as generous.

 

[rcronk]

One of the million conflicting messages that I have trouble understanding:

God is love.
God lets babies suffer horribly and die in a fiery death to give us free will.

What?

Well, FSM, of course you don't get it. It's a mystery. It's a plan. It's part of faith, to watch the suffering of children and to be able to still say with a straight face, "God is love..."

I have no proof to believe that there is a god. But if I did have the proof, I'd think he was a pretty sick, abusive MF and my free will choice would be to burn in hellfire for all eternity rather than to try to make sense of some demented santa-esque figure in the sky burning kids alive...

I have the same questions as you do and I don't have the answers. Perhaps if you were to give a specific example, you and I could work through it to see if there's any other explanation than that God is a "sick, abusive MF."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I have the same questions as you do and I don't have the answers. Perhaps if you were to give a specific example, you and I could work through it to see if there's any other explanation than that God is a "sick, abusive MF."

Work through this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/23/iraq.boyfolo/index.html

Seriously.

No god, or an indifferent one, solves the problem.

It's ludicrous to try to rationalize a loving god, who would allow anyone to suffer if they had the power to make it not so.

No sane human being, who is supposedly created in the spiritual image of god would behave in the same way ..

 

[Tanstaafl]

articulett - If you somehow found out through objective evidence that the Mormon church were the true church of God, would you join? If not, why not? ETA: Let's assume that through objective evidence that it is also proved that God exists - this is just a rhetorical situation. I want to understand you better, that's all.

I'm a little late with this, but then again the question wasn't directed at me. On the other hand, recent posts have made my answer more relevant, so here goes.

While I find it hard to visualize the nature of such evidence, if I did find conclusive objective evidence that the Mormon church was true, I would concede the point, and admit that the Mormon church is true.

The question of whether I would join the church in that case is much more difficult. Because we still have the inescapable fact that the god of the Bible is simply not worthy of worship. Any being who maliciously causes the deaths of millions of innocents is not worthy. So the question of my worship would come down to whether I would be willing to compromise my principles in order to avoid god's punishment. And I really don't know which way I'd go. I suppose I'd chicken out and worship.

 

[FSM]

I have no proof that there is a god so I do not believe in god.

However, if god magiciliciously appeared here before me right now, I would ponder with him why he let the 4 year old I worked with three days ago get raped by her grandfather who told her that he would kill her if she told anyone. I might also politely inquire about the 10 year old who threw herself in front of a train because her mom didn't believe her uncle was abusing her and had for as long as she could remember.

Just two tiny little examples of free will at work in god's miracle plan...(?)

Some nice Christian folks in my life have even suggested that the kids I worked with were hurt JUST SO I can be a part of helping them heal and move on. WHAT?! If I am that singularly important in god's plan that he wants kids to get raped so that I can lend a hand, I'd like to resign my position as FSM Pawn.

There is no reason a benign, loving god would make kids get hurt, raped, killed. There is no reason an all powerful, omnipotent god would be powerless to award free will while still keeping kids from being raped if HE wanted it to be so-- he makes the rules after all. If he wants up without down, black without white, it would be so.

So, to god, if HE exists, I say, you are one abusive, sick MF. Why the hell did you create us to just make us suffer? If it all fits into some HUGE BIG mysterious plan indecipherable to the faithless, then I give god the big old double bird in response. You know why? Because he's playing hide the ball with the lives and feelings of little kids who mean no more to him than some wacked out science experiement that the rats don't get a clue about.

Sick. Abusive. MF.

By the way, rcronk, I respect the way you've handled yourself thus far in a forum full of skeptics. I admire your calm way of discussing things with people.

With all due respect to you personally, as articulett has tried to explain, there is simply no area for agreement with me on this issue, because to get me to say to you, "Yep, you have a good point," you will have to make sense out of children suffering. And to my knowledge no one, no one, no one has ever been able to do that.

If it makes sense to you and your faith, then I don't begrudge you that comfort. But to me, it makes absolutely no sense at all and it never will.

ETA: Rcronk, take a look at Diogenes' link as well. If you get it and can explain it to all of us where it makes perfect sense, I am sure that I will not be the only one to fall upon my knees and start praying to the prophet rcronk.

 

[rcronk]

Youssif - a 5-year old boy in Iraq who went out to play and two masked men doused him with gasoline and left him to burn to death. As the father of 2-year old twins, this tears my heart out. I can't imagine how horrific this would be to go through as the child or as their parent. It's bad enough having to go through it as a complete stranger.

So, the behavior we would expect God to exhibit in this case would be to prevent the masked men from burning the boy? Would he strike them down just before they got there or put some sort of shield around the boy or kill the men as they thought of the act in the first place? Or would you have God prevent them from buying gasoline that day? What exactly would be the desired action?

Once we've discovered that, how far should God go with this? If you're about to steal something, should he force you to not be able to leave your house once you've thought about stealing? What about drinking alcohol and driving? Should he stop you from drinking or just make it so your keys don't fit in the car door? What if you wanted to vote for someone who you thought was a good choice, but it turned out that politician was going to do something bad while in office, should God stop you from being able to vote for this politician or just stop the politician from doing bad while in office? What if you wanted to be atheist. Should He stop you from doing that too or not? What if you were about to accidentally fall down the stairs and break your neck? Should he catch you before you fall, or just make it so you fall in such a way that you only receive X amount of damage?

Where exactly would you have Him draw the line when choosing to force people to do what He wants them to do instead of doing what they want to do?

To make it clear, I want to know from you all 1. exactly what you want God to do in these situations and why and 2. exactly how far should he take this in preventing our free will from doing harm to ourselves or others and why.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I'd settle for god curing him now. I'm sure he's been prayed for.

 

[rcronk]

So, Tanstaafl's answer:

1. God should do nothing until after the fact, but cure people afterward
2. Not specified

Is this correct?

 

[articulett]

Where exactly would you have Him draw the line when choosing to force people to do what He wants them to do instead of doing what they want to do?

Well, let's see... he had the time and inclination to reveal secrets of the world to you and help J. Smith translate gold plates and papyrus... I guess his priorities are little scewed... maybe he's punishing the kid for not praying to know if the BoM is true... or maybe if the kid had been wearing magical undergarments, he would have stepped in...

I would think that any entity willing to give men their own planets in the next world, would step in to ensure that they had a chance to "earn" those planets rather than being immolated. Your god is embarrassingly comic bookish and impotent and appears to change the laws of physics for things like disappearing gold plates and seeing stones-- but not for actual human suffering. Don't you see how brainwashed you have to be to get this all to make sense with some invisible guy who is supposed to be benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent?

 

[FSM]

rcronk, you are applying human rules to an all powerful god. You ask US where god should draw the line? God is the line, god makes the lines, god controls the lines: god can make a world without lines full of just lollipop gardens and happy puppies if he wants. God can make day without night, up without down.

If god wants to allow free will without consequences he can. Unless you don't believe god is all powerful?

ETA: And if the god rulebook is thus, "I HAVE to allow kids to be raped to allow people to have free will," then either your god has a bigger more powerful god who has tied your god's hands, which is probably heresy to think... or

God is a sick, abusive, MF.

 

[articulett]

God should step in the way he stepped in to give you your magical "knowingness". God created evil... seems to have the power to stop it (especially if Mormons are wearing their garments, I hear), but apparently thinks it's fine for innocent kids to suffer-- and, no doubt, their parents too. Or maybe... he just doesn't exist except in the minds of those who feel like he talks to them.

 

[rcronk]

double post

 

[rcronk]

So you demand that God violate people's free will in some cases but not in others and when asked for how you think the best way to do this you have no answer?Answer the questions. I really want to go through this and understand exactly what you want Him to do that would satisfy you and where he should draw the line that would satisfy you. If you don't know, just say so.

 

[Tanstaafl]

So, Tanstaafl's answer:

1. God should do nothing until after the fact, but cure people afterward
2. Not specified

Is this correct?

I didn't know there were two questions. I haven't been keeping up.

I'm just saying, an after-the-fact cure would be the minimum. If he can't do that, that's fine. I could understand him have a Prime Directive of non-interference.

But in that case, it's time to drop all the praying for this and that bull.

 

[articulett]

So you demand that God violate people's free will in some cases but not in others and when asked for how you think the best way to do this you have no answer?Answer the questions. I really want to go through this and understand exactly what you want Him to do that would satisfy you and where he should draw the line that would satisfy you. If you don't know, just say so.

Aren't all prayers invocations of people asking god to change something in the environment...

And certainly "free will" isn't the same for everyone. The kid surely didn't freely choose to be immolated. For an all powerful dude answering some prayers... he does seem to have confused priorities. He invented evil and the whole game and the whole test and knows how it's all going to end up anyhow right. Free will? As if people didn't have different brains and brain damage and circumstances and hormones and experiences and temptations that supposedly god could or does control when he feels like it.

Does it occur to you that animals don't have "free will" and they don't seem to kill willy nilly or immolate children or start wars or fight over who really knows what the invisible creator of the universe wants. They don't invent invisble entities making unfathomable rules that can't be verified along with promises and threats that are equally unverifiable... humans are programmed to be moral creatures... we evolved to be social animals... to learn from and become part of the culture we are born in. Sure, gods and "free will" were useful "training wheel" explanations before we started getting the cool pieces to fall into place-- but now it's clearly silly and primitive and nonsensical despite your having convinced yourself that it means something valuable.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

To make it clear, I want to know from you all 1. exactly what you want God to do in these situations and why and 2. exactly how far should he take this in preventing our free will from doing harm to ourselves or others and why.

1. Whatever it takes. Why ? Because a child without a burnt face is nicer than one with ..

2. Again, god should do whatever is necessary to prevent or alleviate such suffering. Any loving parent, who had the power, would do the the same.

The point is, either God does not have the power to prevent suffering, or he chooses not to.


Of course, the usual apologetic response, is that we cannot understand how god in his wisdom knows that it is better for children to suffer than not..


Did you ever see the movie with James Coburn whose daughter has been shot and killed.

He is being counseled by a clergyman who assures him god does not give us more than we can bear .
Coburn's response : " You mean to tell me, if I was a weaker man, my daughter would still be alive ? "

 

[FSM]

God does not violate free will, god created free will and all of the rules to go along with it. All powerful means all powerful. There are NO restrictions on god.

Seeing god as a benevolent but slightly regretful old sweet guy in the clouds doesn't make any sense. He wants us to not suffer, but wants us to make our own choices? So he can't use is magic woo wand and make that happen?

He can do ANYTHING, I thought? Or no?



(ETA: Thanks Diogenes for the new quote in my sig!)

 

[rcronk]

So, we have:

1. do nothing - cure afterwards, no comment, whatever it takes
2. no answer, no comment, whatever is necessary

Let me try one more time, rephrasing to make the questions more direct. This time, please at least try to answer the questions instead of distracting, avoiding, and being smart alecks:

1. Specifically what do you want God to do in these situations that would satisfy you and why?

2. Exactly where should God draw the line that would satisfy you and why? (e.g. killing, harming (how much), stealing, teaching others false ideas, cheating, etc.)

I think question 2 is the most important.

FSM demanded that God prevent these things from happening, I'm asking some specific questions about how you would like God to do this. Please at least try to answer. I'm just asking for clarification of your demands.

In fact, I'd rather just FSM answer these two questions.

 

[Tanstaafl]

The fact that it's very hard to define an interventionist god that really works should be your first clue that maybe there is no such thing.