|
With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds — physical, moral, and metaphysical.
Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization.
Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.
By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves. The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation. The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction.
Nice post, thanks for the response.
I agree with the definitions of evil you've provided, in so far as what can be called evil, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea that moral obligation is tied directly to the supernatural. Take patriotism for example, I love my country and I'm sure a lot of others do as well. It seems to me that we have not just any obligation, but a moral one to improve the lots of all others who live in this country with me.
It's a chicken and the egg problem to me. If you're an atheist who believes that morality exists, then it cannot be derived from a supernatural source. So where does an atheist go to look for a concept like good or evil? First in himself, then in the world around him.
Empathy is the basis for all morality, IMO, and I think that it is an inherent human trait. I wouldn't want certain things happening to me, and the ability to place myself mentally into another persons shoes tells me what it could be like for them. This enables me to treat them better. The Golden Rule is the way that it has been expressed in the past, with the expectation of teaching empathy to others and ultimately sympathy.
I know it's taken me a while to psot up my thoughts on this, but the festival of the Little Hills has been taking place here where I live and I've been working almost the whole time with few chances to think critically.
|
With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds — physical, moral, and metaphysical.
Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization.
Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.
By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves. The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation. The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction.
Nice post, thanks for the response.
I agree with the definitions of evil you've provided, in so far as what can be called evil, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea that...
It is a bit of a chicken and the egg type thing. All I can say is that I believe that in this case I am right. There are many ways to express things. This is mine.
|
It is a bit of a chicken and the egg type thing. All I can say is that I believe that in this case I am right. There are many ways to express things. This is mine.
By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves. The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation. The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction.Nice post, thanks for the response.
I agree with the definitions of evil you've provided, in so far as what can be called evil, but I don't necessarily agree...
I think some confusion comes from your use of "generally believed", which I have highlighted. That's a way to suggest that it's not your view, when in fact it is. If you said "I believe", it would be clearer that you are speaking for yourself.
I personally think it is demonstrably untrue, given that everyone has a concept of morality regardless of their religious belief (even if they don't follow it). Morality is intrinsic to human consciousness. Since we all have the ability to think abstractly about our previous actions and our future ones, we all have the ability to evaluate their merit on a variety of levels, including impact on ourselves, impact on others, and so on. While people may disagree on certain specifics, the ability to evaluate the morality of a course of action is universal and not tied to religion.
1. Physical evil
2. Mental suffering
3. Moral evil
"The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation."
I agree with the first two, but the third one that really, really bothers me. Accepting this, anyone who supposedly speaks for God can declare anything a "moral evil," and therefore brand people not only as dissenters, but as "evildoers." It's a pre-packaged right to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. If there is no definition of "supernatural order" other than what the priesthood tells me (since God doesn't talk to me, but they claim to speak for Him), then the priesthood is being handed full control of everyone's thoughts and actions, "for their own good." Again, appealing to God doesn't help, because God doesn't talk to me -- only the priests do -- and the Bible is ambiguous -- and the priests are happy to "help me understand." (When I say "priests" in this context, I include preachers, reverends, lamas, imams, and so on).
I can't begin to express how incredibly repugnant I find this -- how my own moral compass (which is based on the first two definitions) tells me that this third definition of "evil" is in fact 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
[EDIT: Ethan Allen said it better than I can; see "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man."]
CJ, Moff, I believe you both has stated that you have had personal experiences that led you to your faith. What made you believe there was not some other explanation for those experiences?
|
CJ, Moff, I believe you both has stated that you have had personal experiences that led you to your faith. What made you believe there was not some other explanation for those experiences?
Like what? Drugs?
(A little snarky, but not quite sure what you're looking for.)
Basically because of what was said and because of what happened.
|
|
CJ, Moff, I believe you both has stated that you have had personal experiences that led you to your faith. What made you believe there was not some other explanation for those experiences?
Sorry. I'm a little bitter about this line of thought. I shared my experience and right after that, three different people came on and basically told me that what I experienced wasn't really what I experienced. Really kind of annoying coming from people who weren't there and really have no idea what happened.
A couple of thoughts to try and answer your question though...
1) I called someone in the middle of it. (In the middle of the night.) He came over and pretty well confirmed what I was going through. (Kind of confirmation for me that I'm not crazy.) One person it's easy to dismiss. Two people who experience the exact same thing and it makes it a little more difficult to dismiss.
2) Regardless of background or anything else, either the other person was simply crazy and a few "magic words" cured her, or there was spiritual warfare going on and God took care of things through us. Anything else would have required some really odd planning (so unlikely for her -- you have no idea) that wouldn't have done anything except confirm my belief in God.
|
|
1. Physical evil
2. Mental suffering
3. Moral evil
"The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation."I agree with the first two, but the third one that really, really bothers me. Accepting this, anyone who supposedly speaks for God can declare anything a "moral evil," and therefore brand people not only as dissenters, but as "evildoers." It's a pre-packaged right to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. If there is no definition of "supernatural order" other than what the priesthood tells me (since God doesn't talk to me, but they claim to speak for Him), then the priesthood is being handed full control of everyone's thoughts and actions, "for their own good." Again, appealing to God doesn't help, because God doesn't talk to me -- only the priests do -- and the Bible is ambiguous -- and the priests are happy to "help me understand." (When I say "priests" in this context, I include preachers, reverends, lamas, imams, and so on).
I can't begin to express how incredibly repugnant I find this -- how my own moral compass (which is based on the first two definitions) tells me that this third definition of "evil" is in fact 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
[EDIT: Ethan Allen said it better than I can; see "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man."]
I can respect that. I think reason is part of what is required, trust is another.
|
|
CJ, Moff, I believe you both has stated that you have had personal experiences that led you to your faith. What made you believe there was not some other explanation for those experiences?
Looking for one. Going and seeing a psychiatrist, who told me,"you are the most sane person I have met. Of course I do not meet a lot of sane people." Experiencing it with four other people. Two of whom have converted, not to Catholicism in specific but to Christianity.
|
|
Experiencing it with four other people.
This is a really big part of it. Every person I talked to who felt that they witnessed a religious miracle, experienced it with at least one other person. Not saying that this is going to be universally true, but it at least seems to happen that way more than not.
Sorry. I'm a little bitter about this line of thought.
Understandable. I am sorry I am questioning you, but I feel I have to.
Also, keep in mind, it didn't "lead" me to my faith. It just confirmed it.
O.k. Then why did you believe before this experience?
(A little snarky, but not quite sure what you're looking for.)
Sorry for taking you all out of order there. I just wanted to discuss these in a different order.
Your comment about finding a new path around the Himalayas got me thinking. I took that to mean you agree there are things which put your beliefs in question, but faith allows you to go around all that.
I started wondering why you would want to. Then I thought maybe I was not understanding from where you were coming from. For example, if you had 'evidence' for your faith (why I asked about the specific experience).
I believe you and CJ have said your experiences/evidence/proof/whatever you want to call it is personal and is not proof for others. But I have to wonder, why not. Why would god conceal himself from some people and reveal himself to others?
Or is it more likely these unexplained phenomenon have a more mundane explanation? You said it only confirmed your faith, so it seems likely to me that you would already be predisposed to look for a faith-based explanation.
I am sorry I am questioning your explanation, but surely you can see how that is a reasonable perspective.
Why would god conceal himself from some people and reveal himself to others?
I think you're at the answer.
Observation: Only pre-existing believers ever seem to receive messages from God.
Religious Explanation: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Atheist Explanation: "Wishful thinking, compounded by confirmation bias."
Take your pick.
|
|
Why would god conceal himself from some people and reveal himself to others?I think you're at the answer.
Observation: Only pre-existing believers ever seem to receive messages from God.
Religious Explanation: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Atheist Explanation: "Wishful thinking, compounded by confirmation bias."Take your pick.
You are making assumptions here.
Looking for one.
I can relate to that, but the Greeks believed Apollo pulled the sun across the sky in his chariot. That gives me pause to accept fantastical explanations.
Going and seeing a psychiatrist, who told me,"you are the most sane person I have met. Of course I do not meet a lot of sane people."
Do you mean to imply that everyone that does not believe in Christianity is insane? Not that you meant that as an insult, but I am sure we could find one or two sane Hindus.
Experiencing it with four other people.
Joseph Smith had eleven witnesses. Since you are not a Mormon, I am guessing you question their accounts. So is it not reasonable for me to question yours?
|
|
Looking for one.I can relate to that, but the Greeks believed Apollo pulled the sun across the sky in his chariot. That gives me pause to accept fantastical explanations.
As well it should
Going and seeing a psychiatrist, who told me,"you are the most sane person I have met. Of course I do not meet a lot of sane people."Do you mean to imply that everyone that does not believe in Christianity is insane? Not that you meant that as an insult, but I am sure we could find one or two sane Hindus.
Not in the least bit. In point of fact- Fred Phelps claims to be a christian and I am sure we all know he is nuts.
Experiencing it with four other people.Joseph Smith had eleven witnesses. Since you are not a Mormon, I am guessing you question their accounts. So is it not reasonable for me to question yours?
Yes, very reasonable. Does it change anything. no.
|
|
... good and reasonable stuff ...
"Why did I believe before...?" Not sure. I guess the simple answer was because I always did. At the time, it made the most sense. Looking back on it, maybe it shouldn't have. I guess I just didn't know better at the time. The older I get/got, the more realized that I was mistaken about some of the things that I knew. (Don't most of us modify what we know the more we know?)
At the time, I felt that even if I was wrong, I wasn't wrong. Every church I have been a part of has been involved with helping others. Not "conditionally". Just because it was what we should do. In addition, I've seen significant changes with people who have come to know Christ. Psychological? Maybe. But these changes generally include a more positive outlook on life and a willingness to help others. I still can't see that as being a bad change.
My experience was really the turning point for me with what you are looking for. Some people (like Samnell has basically said) are looking for an alternative "answer". I feel like I'm really looking for the truth. I replay my experience in my head all the time. I continually ask myself what else it could have been. Nothing else makes sense. Everything else that someone can come up with would have problems with it. And largely starting with the immediate reactions to what you would essentially call "magic words". There was more that happened that summer as well that were related.
There was more that happened with my "unexplained phenomenon" than that it "only confirmed my faith". I said that that would have been true had it been planned or orchestrated by the other person. And, at least appearance wise, I was already pretty strong in my faith. There wouldn't have been any reason for anyone to plan that.
I have often wondered why God reveals himself to some and not to others. The only thing that I can think of is that he feels that you are not ready.
"Why isn't my proof good enough for you?" Maybe it is. I never felt that my experience was meant to be "proof" for anyone but myself. In addition, since you weren't there, you have no idea if I'm telling the truth or not. From your point of view, maybe I wasn't actually swallowed by a whale. Maybe I just dreamed it. Maybe I just made it up to try and convince you of something that isn't true.
Regardless -- I don't want you to believe because of what I went through. (I also know that you wouldn't.) If you are going to believe, it's going to be because you believe.
You are making assumptions here.
Such as...?
P.S. I appreciate brevity, but not as an alternative to communication.
Thanks, Moff.
Regardless -- I don't want you to believe because of what I went through. (I also know that you wouldn't.) If you are going to believe, it's going to be because you believe.
I did not expect you to and that is not why I ask. I am trying to understand how we look at the same thing and come away with different conclusions. There are so many variables that affect our perceptions. I am just trying to see things from your eyes.
|
|
Thanks, Moff.
Regardless -- I don't want you to believe because of what I went through. (I also know that you wouldn't.) If you are going to believe, it's going to be because you believe.I did not expect you to and that is not why I ask. I am trying to understand how we look at the same thing and come away with different conclusions. There are so many variables that affect our perceptions. I am just trying to see things from your eyes.
It was like someone flipped a switch. Three times. First outside the apartment -- I said "magic words" and she was back. Then as soon as she set foot in the apartment again -- she was gone. Then when my friend came over and said more "magic words". The reactions were strong and immediate. I don't really believe in "magic", and since the "magic words" included Christ's name, it seems to be related.
I don't know that you will ever truly be able to see it through my eyes. I'm both sorry and glad that you can't. It's something I'm glad I went through and hope to never witness again.
I used to have a friend who, looking back, I believe was a compulsive liar. He would pretend to channel the spirit of the Sphinx. He could answer the craziest questions I would put to him. I never knew how he had the answers to some of the questions I asked him. But, even then, I did not believe him.
This is not meant as any kind of refutation. Just one of my experiences that led me to be skeptical.
Moff, do you have any idea why your friend would have been possessed? What kind of entity do you think possessed her? Where did you learn the 'magic words'? What was the entity doing while you were waiting for your other friend to come over?
|
|
Moff, do you have any idea why your friend would have been possessed? What kind of entity do you think possessed her? Where did you learn the 'magic words'? What was the entity doing while you were waiting for your other friend to come over?
Hmmm.
Why/How did they get possessed? The apartment that we occupied had been used for certain religious ceremonies. Kind of a small town outside of a big town. We knew everybody in town. (Not "literally", but it often felt that way.) People found out where we lived and would brag about what they did in our apartment before we were there. They claimed to do some astral walking or something like that. Not entirely sure what all they did. That was all basically rumor and I wasn't involved, but the information came from a number of sources at different times. Barring "conspiracy", I believe that there were at least some dark things happening in our apartment before we got there. My current theory is that the apartment was possessed (not sure what else to call it) but pretty well couldn't touch us since we were Christian. The entity may have needed (or felt like it needed) a way out of our lives and grabbed the first person who wasn't a Christian but who also spent some time at our apartment. Not really sure why or how exactly. Someone brought it to our apartment and something took control of my friend.
What took possession? A demonic entity. But that's up for debate. I don't think it was anything with horns and a pointy tail. And I don't think that it was anything like we have in D&D. There weren't flames coming out of my friend's eyes. She didn't start floating. She was acting and reacting to things that weren't there. And she was scared to death. (And she couldn't seem to see me. She would respond to me, but it was like she was looking through me.)
Where did I learn the magic words? There aren't any magic words. Two places. Someone gave a talk one time about his experience with a demon possession. His was different because he was called in to help someone he didn't know, but also because afterward the local church of Satan demanded that he ask for forgiveness for the exorcism by washing his hands in a bowl of blood. He refused. Anyway, the other part really comes from the Bible. You can pretty easily do a topical search on "demon possession", but this is the general idea. But I really don't believe it has anything to do with magic words.
What was it doing while it waited? I have no idea. We're talking about the better part of a year. I would imagine that it was feeling pretty uncomfortable and trying to make us leave.
In related news...
We had some missionary friends of our come and visit. (They are on furlow (sp?).) I asked them what (if any) miracles they had witnessed. Their immediate response was with demon possession. Apparently where they are, trying to get the "spirits' help" is rather common. Everyone's doing it. There are more stories there, but you can probably get missionary contacts from your local church to tell you similar stories. One thing that they said that stuck with me though... Where they are is heavily influenced by Islam. One woman came to them complaining that an evil spirit was in her home and wouldn't leave. Calling out to Allah did nothing and the local shamans were likewise powerless. Not sure where else to turn, she asked the missionaries for help. They said to call on "Jesus" and see what happens. Her house is now clean but now she is concerned about political repurcusions. (And if you don't believe that, fine. It's not meant for your benefit. It's meant for hers. I just found it interesting that for a devout Muslim, "Allah" did nothing yet "Jesus" made everything right.)
Extreme Theology: Decision Theology
Spoiler for those who may not be able to follow the link.
This fine article was written by Pastor Brian Wolfmueller of Hope Lutheran Church in Aurora, Colorado.
“Have you made a decision for Christ?” One often hears this question from radio and television preachers, or even from our friends and family. “Have you invited Jesus into your heart? Have you received Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior? Have you dedicated your life to Christ?” Many churches have a “Time of Decision” at the end of their services, with altar calls and emotional appeals for the person to respond. All of these questions rotate around this same premise: the unbeliever has the ability and responsibility to chose Jesus. But is this what the Bible teaches? Can the unbeliever make a decision for Christ?
What Can We Do?
St Paul speaks of our conversion as a move from death to life. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” [Ephesians 2:1, see also 2:5 and Colossians 2:13] Dead in trespasses and sins. Not sick, not crippled, dead. We are, says St Paul, dead in our sins, completely unable to chose or decide anything regarding Jesus. Again, St. Paul, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” [1 Corinthians 2:14] The things of the Spirit of God, this certainly includes the truth of Jesus and His cross and death for us, all these things are unknown and unknowable to the natural man, the mind of flesh. The Gospel is “foolishness” [1 Corinthians 1:23,25] to those who do not believe. How, then, could we invite the unbeliever to make a decision for that which is foolish? It cannot.
Again, St Paul says, “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” [Galatians 5:17] Far from accepting the good news of Jesus, our sinful flesh fights against it. As Stephen, the first martyr after Jesus' Ascension, preaches to the Jews in Jerusalem, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” [Acts 7:51] Such accusation stands over all the unbelieving world, “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” [Ephesians 4:18]
Far from having a free will to choose or make a decision for Jesus, the Scriptures speak of the natural condition of man as an enemy of God. “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.” [Romans 8:7] The fleshly mind “does not” and “can not” submit to God's law. Such sure testimonies should answer the question “Can we make a decision for Christ?” The Scriptures plainly tell us “no”. St Paul quotes from the Psalms, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” [Romans 3:10-12] And the Lord Jesus testifies, “The light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” [John 1:5]
Conversion: God's Work
The Bible says that we cannot chose or turn to God, that we are completely helpless when it comes to heavenly things. How, then, are we to believe? Conversion, turning from death to life and from the devil to God is a work of God Himself; a work of God alone. We call this the teaching of monergism, God alone is the cause of our salvation; He creates faith [see Ephesians 2:8-10] and gives repentance as a gift. Such is the testimony of the Scriptures.
When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." [Acts 11:18]
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. [Acts 16:14]
Jesus says, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.” [Matthew 11:27] And again, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” [Matthew 13:11]
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. [1 John 5:20]
Just as the Lord spoke and the universe was created out of nothing, so our knowledge and trust in the Lord is created out of nothing in us. “For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” [2 Corinthians 4:6] God's Word alone creates faith in us. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [Romans 1:16] So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. [Romans 10:17]
It is the Holy Spirit, working through the Word of God, who gives us faith and trust in Jesus and His cross, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [Philippians 2:13] So what we learn in the Catechism is a marvelous summary of this Biblical teaching:
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.
In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.
Our faith is a work of God the Holy Spirit through His Word.
Jesus' Work is Our Comfort
It is plain from the Scriptures that the unbeliever cannot make a decision for Jesus or invite them in to their heart, but that the Holy Spirit, through the Word, converts the heart and gives us faith. But does this matter?
Jesus teaches us, “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in Me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” [John 15:5] This is a verse of marvelous comfort, for here we have Jesus' promise that, abiding in Him, we will bear much fruit. But Jesus is also warning us to not think too highly of ourselves. “Apart from Me you can do nothing.” Jesus means what He says, there is no doing anything good or holy apart from Him.
If we think that the unbeliever has the will to chose Jesus or make a decision for Christ, then we undo Jesus' words, as if He wanted to say, “Apart from Me you can do nothing except invite Me into your heart.” But Jesus wants us to have the comfort that He Himself, through the Holy Spirit, has given us repentance and faith.
Far from making a decision for Jesus, the Lord's people rejoice that He has made a decision for us, to die for us, to forgive all our sins, to baptize us into His family, and to call us through His Gospel. Our faith is Jesus' work, and this is our great comfort.
May our Lord's words to His disciples also grant us peace: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide.” [John 15:16] Amen.
It sounds to me, an unbeliever, that I am off the hook. God will save me, or not. There isn't really anything I can do about it until he gets around to me.
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
This just sends up red flags for me. It sounds like a clever diversion for a lack of evidence.
Hi, Wyntrewolfe. I haven't forgotten you. :)
It would be a very large project to take the entire site you sent to me in one big bite. I don't know that I have the time or energy to do so, and even if I do it would probably take me forever to get back to you. At this point everyone would have lost interest or just forgotten anyway.
So in the name of pragmatism and timely posting, I'm going to do my best to hit major points as they occur to me and consider the responses provided. I think that's fair.
Now as I understand the story, Smith had a vision of an angel. The angel told him that after a few years he was to go to this particular place and dig up the golden tablets. This is a bit fishy. Lots of people have visions and neither of us think most of them are right about much of anything. I bet we both think some of them are just plain nuts too, but even aside that people do sometimes see things that aren't there without being completely out of their minds. They're also mistaken about things they actually did see. Hasn't everyone seen something out of the corner of the eye in a dark house and thought it was something menacing? I once had an incident of sleep paralysis where I hallucinated a man made out of shadows with big shoulders strangling me and shaking me from the corner of my room. Wild stuff.
However the story with the angel giving Smith the GPS coordinates isn't that important. He could just as easily have been digging and found the tablets for some other reason. If these tablets were legitimate artifacts of a pre-Columbian civilization, they'd have been there anyway. They didn't magically appear just for Smith but rather, like any other detritus of an ancient civilization, laid around underground until someone came looking for them. Just like the pyramids, they didn't walk off and hide in a corner but rather were inert objects left in place through the intervening centuries, unchanged except maybe for natural wear and tear given their environment and the time involved.
Do we have to take Smith at his word that he had the plates? It appears so. I have read the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and it appears to describe not an actual event like going to the outhouse or stubbing your toe, but rather a visionary experience:
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, his brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken.
This is pretty typical of the kind of thing that people in the Burned-Over District did all the time. It was practically the regional sport. Smith himself apparently came from a family quite caught up in the religious enthusiasms of the day:
Smith and his family participated in the religious enthusiasm of the period.[7] Although he may never have joined a church in his youth,[8] Joseph Smith participated in church classes[9] and read the Bible. With his family, he took part in religious folk magic,[10] a common practice but one condemned by many clergymen.[11] Like many people of that era,[12] both his parents and his maternal grandfather had mystical visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God.[13] Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven[14] and that all churches were false.[15]
He also spent a fair portion of his early life supplementing his income with divination. I don't know that I'd call his particular method dowsing, but it appears quite akin. No form of divination has yet returned any results worth being taken seriously. This is not especially conducive to his credibility. He seems to me to have been a man who grew up with a fundamentally magical worldview, awash in imagination and perhaps consciously a huckster. (How does one make a living divining for treasure? By getting someone to pay you for it, of course. Actually finding treasures doesn't matter so much when you travel around enough. Patent medicine was sold with the same method. America in the 1800s was lousy with this kind of thing.)
But ok, let's set that aside. Even if he was a professional conman he could have been telling the truth this one time. The Three Witnesses aren't much help because at best their testimony is equivocal. They may mean to say that they saw the plates like they saw trees, horses, and water. But they may also be referring to a mystical experience. I must dismiss that because firstly people have lots of mystical experiences and don't seem to agree on much of anything, so mysticism is unreliable, and there's no way for me to tell a genuine mystical experience from a knowing fraud. People do lie and if all someone is telling me is that they saw it in their head, how am I to credit it? The best I could say is that there's no way of knowing if they're being honest or not. I wouldn't buy an action figure just on someone's say-so that it was cool, let alone a religion and I think we would agree that religions are more serious than molded bits of plastic and paint. (Or at least I hope we would agree that this is the case. If not, well, we probably do not have a lot to talk about.:) )
The website you referred to me to does not leave itself with the Three Witnesses, though. So maybe we do not have to just take Smith at his word. That’s handy, because I’m not prepared to do that. Instead we have the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses. This is better in that it’s much more specific and unambiguous. They claim to have touched the plates, been shown them by Smith himself, etc. Clearly they are not speaking in some kind of mystical mode here. So far so good.
The Eight Witnesses were all members of the Whitmer or Smith families: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel Harrison Smith. Joseph Smith Sr. was Joseph's father, and Hyrum and Samuel H. Smith were his brothers. Christian, Jacob, Peter Jr. and John were David Whitmer's brothers, and Hiram Page was his brother-in-law.[2]
The lack of diversity is worrisome to say the least. No non-Mormon ever saw the plates, so far as I can tell from this. I am inclined to dismiss Smith’s relations out of hand as hardly independent. The Whitmers were friends of Smith’s. That’s also worrisome. Everybody was apparently involved in the LDS movement at the time of the Testimony, or became so shortly thereafter. Could Smith find no non-believer who would sign the paper? When the Mormons left they hardly depopulated the entire half of the state. For a matter so vital as authenticating the provenance of a new testament of Jesus Christ, no disinterested party could be found? That’s pretty hard to believe. What about a local notary? A lawyer? A Justice of the Peace? Surely seeing the plates themselves would not render one a Mormon, since even according to Smith their text was unreadable to anybody then alive without magical guidance.
And, of course, seeing plates made of what appears to be gold would be a pretty big sensation. People surely would have come from all around to see such a novelty for, if nothing else, the excitement that would have also drawn them to political speeches, to the circus, or anything else out of the ordinary in a time before TV, radio, the internet, and the like. Anybody besides friends and relations would be a step up, but we have none of that. Smith had every reason to want to do better if he was in earnest. So did his friends and family. Why could they not produce such a witness, or in fact dozens of them? I understand some people don’t want to get involved with the crazy new religious sect, whatever it is, but the fact that no such witness, not even one, is available is extremely suspicious.
Which leaves us no better than we started, really. I’m sure if I wanted to badly enough I could get together a dozen or so family and friends who will all sign some kind of fictitious testimony I pen, so long as it’s not going to open them to serious legal liability.
Then there’s the matter of the script on the plates. Let’s say that the plates existed for the sake of argument. That’s a pretty tenuous premise, but let’s go with it for the moment. The writing on the tablets is purported to be a reformed Egyptian script. Very well, we do know of several Egyptian scripts. The language and scripts may indeed be peculiar to the writers, so we should not expect them to match exactly with contemporaneous Egyptian writings. Distance in both space and time are very helpful factors in linguistic change.
But we should expect that reformed Egyptian would look like it came from Egyptian. The script I am using to write this post is more or less reformed Latin and it’s very obviously Latinate. If you go to Rome you can read the inscriptions. If you don’t have any Latin they might not mean anything to you, and there are some variances in that we have a few more letters than the Romans did, but it’s transparently the same alphabet we use now. Take a look at this coin to see what I’m saying. Very recognizable even nearly two thousand years gone.
It happens that we have a document which is purported to be a sample written by Smith himself of Reformed Egyptian. It’s been examined by both Egyptologists and experts in pre-Columbian script…and they think it’s pretty much bunk:
Standard language reference works contain no reference to "reformed Egyptian".[3] No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" orthography as it has been described in Mormon belief. For instance, in 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, "From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America… In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian'."[8] Klaus Baer, another Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, called the characters of the "Caractors" document nothing but "doodlings".[9] An early twentieth century scholar said that the "Carators" document looked more like "deformed English." [10] Anthropologist Michael D. Coe of Yale University, an expert in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican studies, has written, "Of all the peoples of the pre-Columbian New World, only the ancient Maya had a complete script."[11]
If it’s Reformed Egyptian, it should be close enough that the Egyptologists recognize it. (That’s the point with the coin.) Even if it’s not and it’s some other pre-Columbian script that similarity should be visible to the competent experts too. Yet it’s not. Why is it that the only experts that are mustered for me to examine are apologists? If the language is what the Mormons tell me it is, then it should be obvious to the competent scholars. Yet it only seems obvious to Mormon scholars. This points very strongly to it being an article of faith being defended, not a matter of linguistics.
I’m sorry that I didn’t get into the material of the book itself, but like I said it’s a big topic. From where I sit, the absence of any independent and reliable witnesses already puts the golden tablets into the realm of imagination. The most obvious explanation is that Smith, alone or with confederates, wrote the book himself. The linguistics is just an additional nail in the coffin.]
Is Jesus saying Christians are being punished because they strayed from his teachings?
|
|
Is Jesus saying Christians are being punished because they strayed from his teachings?
I started reading it but it's a little long. I'll try and get to it later.
But ... how is this a "letter"? The letters in the Bible are written like ... well ... letters. This is written more like the gospels. Just curious. (You seem to know more about Gnostic literature than I do.)
I wondered that same thing. It starts off like it is meant for Philip, then quickly turns into, "Remember that one time…"
From a skeptical perspective, it seems the author was suggesting Phillip was thinking the same thing (whatever mischief the target audience was up to), but Jesus said no.
You seem to know more about Gnostic literature than I do.
I don't know about all that. I find this stuff on Wikipedia.
|
|
I wondered that same thing. It starts off like it is meant for Philip, then quickly turns into, "Remember that one time…"
From a skeptical perspective, it seems the author was suggesting Phillip was thinking the same thing (whatever mischief the target audience was up to), but Jesus said no.
You seem to know more about Gnostic literature than I do.I don't know about all that. I find this stuff on Wikipedia.
It was found in Nag Hammadi. I think it was basically unknown till then. Only the first part is supposed to be a excerpt from a letter. The rest is a long and quite distorted discourse on the nature of Christ from a gnostic point of view. Or views as it maybe since it is so darn hard to read.
Whoa! That seems kind of creepy.
It was found in Nag Hammadi. I think it was basically unknown till then. Only the first part is supposed to be a excerpt from a letter. The rest is a long and quite distorted discourse on the nature of Christ from a gnostic point of view. Or views as it maybe since it is so darn hard to read.
Wikipedia suggested it was regarded as pseudepigrapha from antiquity. Of course there is no reference, so you may be right that it was unknown until being rediscovered in the Nag Hammadi library.
Why do you say it is distorted?
|
|
It was found in Nag Hammadi. I think it was basically unknown till then. Only the first part is supposed to be a excerpt from a letter. The rest is a long and quite distorted discourse on the nature of Christ from a gnostic point of view. Or views as it maybe since it is so darn hard to read.Wikipedia suggested it was regarded as pseudepigrapha from antiquity. Of course there is no reference, so you may be right that it was unknown until being rediscovered in the Nag Hammadi library.
Why do you say it is distorted?
Now I did not read the link you provided since I have a copy. I have read it before and in my view it is distorted because it seems like there are two competing views in the same text that may have been redacted together into one narrative. Then again I have not read it for some time so I may just be mistaken.
I agree it is difficult to understand what exactly the author is saying. It does seem consistent to me that Jesus is admonishing his apostles for some sort of corruption. Or maybe it is the Jews and his apostles.
I have been wanting to run a Charlemagne campaign. I may have to set my campaign date ahead a few decades and incorporate this.
Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark
I had heard of Secret Mark before. The passage given here does not seem that controversial. Of course, I am looking at it from a 21st century perspective.
What really amused me is the first part of this sounds a lot like how someone would start their internet assault.
… which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies.
Tell me that is not something Sebastian has said on this very board.
Or maybe it was something to do with Psionics. I can't remember which.
|
|
Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark
I had heard of Secret Mark before. The passage given here does not seem that controversial. Of course, I am looking at it from a 21st century perspective.
What really amused me is the first part of this sounds a lot like how someone would start their internet assault.
… which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies.
Tell me that is not something Sebastian has said on this very board.
Or maybe it was something to do with Psionics. I can't remember which.
Bored?
Bored?
Reading up on early Christianity. I did not know that Clement was martyred by having an anchor tied around his neck and tossed into the sea. I did not know much at all about Simon Peter except that he was suppose to guard the pearly gates. I do not think I had even heard of Ignatius of Antioch.
So…yeah.
|
|
Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark
I had heard of Secret Mark before. The passage given here does not seem that controversial. Of course, I am looking at it from a 21st century perspective.
What really amused me is the first part of this sounds a lot like how someone would start their internet assault.
… which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies.
Tell me that is not something Sebastian has said on this very board.
Or maybe it was something to do with Psionics. I can't remember which.
Sounds slightly psi in insulting.
You seem to know more about Gnostic literature than I do.
In case you got bored too.
Now I did not read the link you provided since I have a copy. I have read it before and in my view it is distorted because it seems like there are two competing views in the same text that may have been redacted together into one narrative.
Why do you say it is distorted?
That describes a good chunk of the Bible, except instead of two it's anywhere from two to four or five.
|
|
That describes a good chunk of the Bible, except instead of two it's anywhere from two to four or five.Now I did not read the link you provided since I have a copy. I have read it before and in my view it is distorted because it seems like there are two competing views in the same text that may have been redacted together into one narrative.
Why do you say it is distorted?
Actually yes parts of it are like that. I have never seen that list before and there seems a couple of extra options I had not heard of before.
Actually yes parts of it are like that. I have never seen that list before and there seems a couple of extra options I had not heard of before.
And recent scholarship makes the thing look messier, later, and less historical still, though I'm much less familiar with that than I am with the DH.
|
|
And recent scholarship makes the thing look messier, later, and less historical still, though I'm much less familiar with that than I am with the DH.
Actually yes parts of it are like that. I have never seen that list before and there seems a couple of extra options I had not heard of before.
Oh this is so damn funny. I have seen this before, it is a sad attempt to skip over obvious archeological evidence most mainstream scholars agree on. DH at least has some more specific evidence to support it.