Christian MEN Wearing Skirts

[MrNaturalAZ]

I suppose, if asked, I would HOPE that a supreme deity exists, if only to render some sort of karmic justice. The idea that there is no ultimate justice or punishment earned by the most horrid monsters among us - that such men like those we now watch in ISIS can commit their evil with complete impunity - I would find truly disheartening, if not maddening.

That's probably the strongest argument against such a supreme deity. All the undeserved suffering and death endured by innocent people not only at the hand of assorted social misfits, but also victims of illness and natural disaster (so-called "acts of God"), raises an interesting question: Why does a "loving god" allow (and in some cases cause) such suffering? Either "God" cannot prevent it, and therefore is not omnipotent, or else "He" just doesn't care and chooses not to - therefore is not loving and certainly not worthy of worship.

Or one could draw the more obvious conclusion - there is no "God", at least not one that is loving and omnipotent, as most religions present "Him" as being.

[Departed Member]

I suppose, if asked, I would HOPE that a supreme deity exists, if only to render some sort of karmic justice. The idea that there is no ultimate justice or punishment earned by the most horrid monsters among us - that such men like those we now watch in ISIS can commit their evil with complete impunity - I would find truly disheartening, if not maddening.

That's probably the strongest argument against such a supreme deity. All the undeserved suffering and death endured by innocent people not only at the hand of assorted social misfits, but also victims of illness and natural disaster, raises an interesting question: Why does a "loving god" allow such suffering? Either "God" cannot prevent it, and therefore is not omnipotent, or else "He" just doesn't care and chooses not to - therefore is not loving and certainly not worthy of worship.

Or one could draw the more obvious conclusion - there is no "God", at least not one that is loving and omnipotent, as most religions present "Him" as being.

This seems to be, along with the chicken/egg query, the question of all time. Why would an allegedly loving God allow suffering and bad things to happen to the innocent? The LDS religion has some interesting doctrines on or proposed answers to this question of why a supposed just and loving God/Creator lets bad things happen to innocent people.

1.) The LDS religion teaches of the agency or free will of men and woman, and that as part of the laws of justice and mercy, mankind must be given their freewill to choose to believe and act according to their own desires and live with the consequences of their beliefs and actions. Sometimes this means people will choose bad and harm others who are innocent. But, this is the price of man's agency or freedom to choose and act. Because that loving God has given every man and woman his/her agency, he allows men/women to use their agency to harm others, not interfering in man's use of his agency so as to preserve the law of justice, while extending mercy to those who use their agency harmfully by offering the benefits of Christ's Atonement, thus fulfilling the law of mercy. This is what the LDS believe as one reason for why "bad things happen to innocent or good people." Some may question whether a God who gives man his agency and allows him to harm others is really a loving God. But, I like to think of it this way: because I believe God has given us our agency/freedom to choose and act and live with our consequences, according to our own desires, while instructing us in all things on how to use that agency, this is what truly makes God loving. He's loving in giving us our freedom to choose according to our desires, while offering instruction along the way in how to use that freedom in the best way. Those are my personal beliefs concerning this issue. This idea was actually summed up quite well in a secular film adaptation of "The Giver," recently released, whose main theme is that even though people make bad choices that cause much pain and suffering for others when given freedom to choose, paying that small price is worth having the freedom to choose.

2.) Another reason can be found in one of the LDS scriptural books, called Doctrine and Covenants, particularly sections 121-122, which can be read in full here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 1?lang=eng and here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 2?lang=eng basically says that mankind is given hardship so that he may grow/progress over time, have reason to remain humble, and trust in God continually for all things, who gives liberally and upbraids not, according to James in the Bible. Or if you rather read a shortened version of the lessons in those scriptures, you can read this link: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... 2?lang=eng

Also, another unofficial yet common LDS source of answers to this question can be found in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," concerning the values of tribulation/suffering:

"The Value of Tribulation

Section Three 1838-39, p.134

[My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes. Thy friends do stand by thee, and they shall hail thee again, with warm hearts and friendly hands; thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did Job; and they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun; and also that God hath set His hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand His marvelous workings, that He may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness; also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost; that they may be disappointed also; and their hopes may be cut off; and not many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand by the wall. Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them; but those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin and are the children of disobedience themselves; and those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death; wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones; they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house; their basket shall not be full, and their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them; they shall not have right to the Priesthood, nor their posterity after them, from generation to generation; it had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.

Section Three 1838-39, p.135

Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell. Behold mine eyes see and know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof, for them all; for there is a time appointed for every man according as his work shall be.]

A Tried People

Section Three 1838-39, p.135

And now, beloved brethren, we say unto you, that inasmuch as God hath said that He would have a tried people, that He would purge them as gold, now we think that this time He has chosen His own crucible, wherein we have been tried; and we think if we get through with any degree of safety, and shall have kept the faith, that it will be a sign to this generation, altogether sufficient to leave them without excuse; and we think also, it will be a trial of our faith equal to that of Abraham, and that the ancients will not have whereof to boast over us in the day of judgment, as being called to pass through heavier afflictions; that we may hold an even weight in the balance with them; but now, after having suffered so great sacrifice and having passed through so great a season of sorrow, we trust that a ram may be caught in the thicket speedily, to relieve the sons and daughters of Abraham from their great anxiety, and to light up the lamp of salvation upon their countenances, that they may hold on now, after having gone so far unto everlasting life."

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T3.html

And then finally, a third LDS scriptural teachings, found in the Book of Mormon, Ether 12, though somewhat different in its message, could be seen to apply here in relation to the second reason for why God lets innocents suffer. Ether 12:27 says God gives men weakness so that they may choose to be humble and come unto Him: "https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/eth ... 7?lang=eng

These are some of the LDS beliefs and teachings that typically are used to answer the age old question of why a "loving" God would allow innocents to suffer at the hands of others, or even illness and such.

[Jim]

The LDS religion has some interesting doctrines on or proposed answers to this question of why a supposed just and loving God/Creator lets bad things happen to innocent people.

I think your first two reasons would be accepted by many in the larger Christian community. They are what makes the most sense to me.

[dillon]

I find it more credible to consider a supreme deity that is omniscient but not omnipotent.

[Tor]

I find it more credible to consider a supreme deity that is omniscient but not omnipotent.

Agreed. Some of my readings at least leave as a real possibly merely potentially omniscient in any given instance but perhaps not omniscient in the grand sense.

Other of my readings are quite clear, and have probability calculations to back them up, that the Earth (more specifically the grand shapes on the Earth) and, to a lesser extent, the sky as seen from Earth, was designed by gods (note lowercase). These gods need be nothing more than folk with technology that lands in the realm of science fiction only because we do not yet have the technical means to duplicate the feats. Though I am less versed in the science than I would like to one day be, my understanding is that science recognizes that in the techincal sense this is possible, and indeed actually stipulates that this happened. The only difference is modern science claims it happened through random processes, but, as best I can verify thus far, the probability of the particlar forms we see occurring by chance is low enough to make that claim laughable.

[crfriend]

I find it more credible to consider a supreme deity that is omniscient but not omnipotent.

In this case, if the deity is in the least empathetic, then the described situation would be almost unbelievably tragic. That kind of takes the gloss off being a god.

Not only does it take the gloss off, it reduces gods to being mere spectators of the six o'clock Fox news. Faced with an eternity of that I'd likely shoot myself, but as I'm a mortal I have that option. Gods, on the other hand... Poor sods.

On the odds of "life" (as we know it) arising on any individual planet go, yes, they may well be pretty small. However, the number of available known planets and other satellites is growing by leaps and bounds -- and that's just what we can see with our feeble space-based eyes at the moment -- and that increases the probability of "life" elsewhere rather dramatically. What, too, happens if we encounter a form of life that requires neither carbon nor water? Would we even recognize it as such? I posit not unless it stood up and flipped us the bird for our insolent ignorance.

[dillon]

I will ponder all that, Carl, but I no longer have a good weed connection,.. Just kidding...I do have a good weed connection... No just kidding again, but seriously, though, I understand what you mean, I think.

You do have a good point, but once you remove carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, three of the four building blocks of what we know as life are gone. Perhaps some form could exist on nitrogen and some minerals, and may well flip us off , but it seems unlikely, in the terms we understand biological existence. I suppose the indicator of some alternative life form would be observable fecundity, but how would we know what a life cycle or generation of such existence would look like? If such was possible, and it may well be, we might not have to explore other worlds to find it; it may exist beneath our eyes, and we just have not figured out that it's there.

As for an omniscient deity, I never implied that such a God would be fair or merciful, but merely aware of what the trajectory and perhaps destiny that human existence has in store; perhaps it is that I do not want to feel like an ant kept in a jar, but it goes with my belief of spiritual endowment and the gifts of reason and empathy, and is somewhat like the "free choice" belief spoken of by others in this thread. I would only hope we can be judged by our employment of the gifts with which He/She endowed us, though, and not by our submission to denial of human responsibility for the fate of His/Her creation. I suppose that is sort of a "faith without all the dogma" belief system, and clearly it is not as cut and dried as standard Scriptural faith. I have many questions yet to reconcile.

That belief structure, of course, presumes that humanity is the highest physical trophic level of this world, as the Scriptures have us believe, a belief I also embrace. The ultimate trophic level in the great scheme, in my belief and in Scriptures (and, trust me, the two beliefs rarely intersect) is spiritual, be it heaven/hell, or some karmic recycle bin in which I tend to believe. Perhaps if I asked questions as deeply as you have done, and perhaps I should, I may not even view humanity as the climax-community of the planet. That too would confuse and depress me, I suppose. But at this juncture in our feeble understanding even some Atheists seem to view humanity as the biological/evolutionary end-game of Earth. That sort of shows that we don't really ever escape the images and ideas that surround us, no matter what we wish to believe. I accept that there is some conventionality in my own belief, but it is not very dogmatic.

Spirituality is an expedition, of course, at least for me, and I don't know where it will take me. Some of the traditionally faithful are fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, depending on one's perspective, to possess such rock-solid beliefs that their expedition never needs leave their own back yard. I respect them though I am not among them, but my spiritual expedition thus far has pretty much kept me on this planet, and its possible after-worlds. It is a basic belief system upon which most every religion, probably from the moment man conceived deistic belief, has been based. So I guess my search is for theology that I can reconcile with empirical reality, at least the portion of that reality that we presently understand.

[crfriend]

I will ponder all that, Carl, but I no longer have a good weed connection [...]

Don't worry about that, I don't either!

You do have a good point, but once you remove carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, three of the four building blocks of what we know as life are gone.

Hydrogen exists in the universe with bounty, and everything else is synthesized from it by the internal processes of stars. What I was driving at is that there may be possibilities for life that have been overlooked much in the same vein as that we all know that blood is red. But what of the octopus? (They have green blood, it being based on copper rather than iron.)

Perhaps some form could exist on nitrogen and some minerals, and may well flip us off , but it seems unlikely, in the terms we understand biological existence. I suppose the indicator of some alternative life form would be observable fecundity, but how would we know what a life cycle or generation of such existence would look like? If such was possible, and it may well be, we might not have to explore other worlds to find it; it may exist beneath our eyes, and we just have not figured out that it's there.

New species are being discovered with remarkable frequency right here on Earth, some of which defy expectation (e.g. the ones who "feed" via chemosynthesis near hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor). As a species, we need to open our minds a little more to what not only might be "out there", but possibly "right here" as well.

As for an omniscient deity, I never implied that such a God would be fair or merciful, but merely aware of what the trajectory and perhaps destiny that human existence has in store; perhaps it is that I do not want to feel like an ant kept in a jar, but it goes with my belief of spiritual endowment and the gifts of reason and empathy, and is somewhat like the "free choice" belief spoken of by others in this thread.

I was having a sidelong go at the notion of a "loving god" with my pervious comment as love requires empathy, and empathy without the ability to actually do anything can be a burden. If scripture and history are any guide, the notional god so beloved by western man is a brutal, petty, and vindictive one -- hardly worthy of veneration.

I would only hope we can be judged by our employment of the gifts with which He/She endowed us, though, and not by our submission to denial of human responsibility for the fate of His/Her creation. I suppose that is sort of a "faith without all the dogma" belief system, and clearly it is not as cut and dried as standard Scriptural faith. I have many questions yet to reconcile.

As I age, I find myself observing that karma does, in fact, work. It works quite well indeed, but it works in a time-frame that we are not encouraged by the pace of modern life to see. If anything, the hectic pace of the world around us actively discourages us from noticing it in action. This is not divine; this is human (and it may work for other species who demonstrate empathy and altruism, although there seems to be no concrete proof of that at the moment), and I've been caught up in it a couple of times, fortunately in positive ways as that's the way I strive to behave towards others.

I find the notion that Homo Sapiens occupy "the top of the pile" rather abhorrent, as one of the things I've learnt over the decades is that there's always somebody (to anthropomorphise) smarter/stronger/faster/whatever than you are, and that has instilled a certain level of humility. There is a growing body of evidence that we are not the only thinking/feeling species on the planet; fairly strong arguments are showing up that cetaceans behave so, and some of those behaviours have also been seen in elephants (which may be why they're so dangerous to be around). So, I cannot subscribe to the notion that we're at the top of the pyramid.

Spirituality is an expedition, of course, at least for me, and I don't know where it will take me.

That sentiment resonates with me, although I cannot call it "spirituality" with conviction for that implies in a belief in a "creator" which I do not have. However, the journey through life is a profound one, and the more we can understand from it the better. As in anything else, though, it's the details that count; unfortunately, the little details usually get drowned out by the level of outright noise we're exposed to on a day-to-day basis.

Some of the traditionally faithful are fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, depending on one's perspective, to possess such rock-solid beliefs that their expedition never needs leave their own back yard.

I feel sorry for such types because their closed-mindedness keeps them from really experiencing the wonders of the world around them. That's not so much "life" as "existence". I revel in being exposed to new things.

[Departed Member]

I find it more credible to consider a supreme deity that is omniscient but not omnipotent.

On the odds of "life" (as we know it) arising on any individual planet go, yes, they may well be pretty small. However, the number of available known planets and other satellites is growing by leaps and bounds -- and that's just what we can see with our feeble space-based eyes at the moment -- and that increases the probability of "life" elsewhere rather dramatically. What, too, happens if we encounter a form of life that requires neither carbon nor water? Would we even recognize it as such? I posit not unless it stood up and flipped us the bird for our insolent ignorance.

This is another aspect of the LDS/Mormon faith that is addressed scripturally and in its general doctrine as well, one which makes it somewhat unique, simply because it believes in and preaches the truth of "alien" life, albeit not in the way most think. The LDS scriptures teach that God dwells on a planet similar to ours, naming a particular star that is closet to that planet, which name is Kolob. They also teach that God has created (I personally believe through scientific laws of physics, biology, and chemistry) other such planets as we dwell on and He dwells, ours and the others being modeled after His, which planets he has populated with his offspring, of which we are but a part. So, LDS doctrine teaches that these other worlds designed by Jehova, or Christ as Mormons believe, done in the name of God the Father, the Father and Christ/Jehova being two separate beings united in purpose-these other worlds are populated with humans just like us and filled with animals just like ours and which planets look like ours. Perhaps they have other species of animals that we don't have, but I reckon things on those other habitable planets are pretty similar to our earth here. It's my personally belief that the other planets in our solar system, far from having a purpose, act as governing bodies, created out of existing materials so as to act as weights and counterweights in the governing gravitational system of our solar system, and without one of them, our gravitational orbit would be off course, possible destructively. Mormonism also preaches of alien visitations to earth, but again not quite in the way the world sees aliens. LDS doctrine preaches God and His son Jesus Christ routinely visit this particular earth, and those two being from different planets, or at least God the Father seeing as Christ lived here as well, they, or God the Father are technically "aliens" who have visited this earth bring further light and knowledge to its inhabitants.

This wiki page offers some basic explanations of LDS/Mormon teachings on cosmology and life on other planets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cos ... trial_life

As strange as it may seem, Mormonism is a fascinating religion when the doctrine is studied in detail and pondered, even for me as a faithful practicing member!

[Tor]

Potbelly, very interesting ideas on life on other worlds. The description of how life on Earth developed is, at that level of abstraction, arguably identical to what I have been being persuaded to from a rather different direction. The difference really lies in that my sources suggest that a group is the agent rather than a single God. Hmmm... re-reading what you said, I find it even closer than I first thought.

I'll have to think more later, since I've already stolen more time for this right now than I ought.

[dillon]

I guess my belief system doesn't necessarily define God as a "being" but more as a force, which exists without the need to "dwell." I can't really explain it beyond that.

[Sinned]

To go a little bit further to what Ptblly said our LDS faith teaches us that God was once a man like us - "As man is God once was, as God is man might become". To be a little more specific that God is a physical being with flesh and bones similar to ours ( Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 for those who want to look it up ). I think that to extend Crl's vision of karma that it gives hope that there is something better for us beyond this life for those of us who lead the kind of life suited to it.

There is also another version of this life outlined in the book "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot that is worth reading although I find some of it rather difficult. ( I tried several times on that last word and "difficult" is perhaps the best one I could come up with! ).

[Departed Member]

Potbelly, very interesting ideas on life on other worlds. The description of how life on Earth developed is, at that level of abstraction, arguably identical to what I have been being persuaded to from a rather different direction. The difference really lies in that my sources suggest that a group is the agent rather than a single God. Hmmm... re-reading what you said, I find it even closer than I first thought.

I'll have to think more later, since I've already stolen more time for this right now than I ought.

It's often remarkable just how similar religions can be to each other. True, differences amass, but similarities I think are stronger than people often think or perhaps would even like. I took a world religions course during my studies at BYU in UT and I was fascinated by the similarities between the LDS religion and the other major world religions. They had us observe different meetings of different religions. It was a fantastic course and I enjoyed learning of the other world religions and seeing so many similarities!

As for a plurality of beings creating the world as opposed to one God per se, the LDS religion believes that too, that it wasn't just one being or entity that created the earth and solar system, but rather, in the very least, 2 beings that did so, if not more. Scripturally, the creation account in both the Bible and uniquely LDS scripture called The Pearl of Great Price says that when it came time to creating the earth, the "gods" got together and decided on the plan and created it. Notice how "gods" is in plurality. My personal belief, or perhaps hope I guess, is that all of God's children, myself included, along with Jehova/Christ and Michael (who Mormons believe is Adam) had a hand in creating the earth in some way. There's no LDS doctrine on that though, other than a plurality of gods created the earth, whether that be many, 3, or just two. The LDS believe that God, the Father, Father to both Christ and all of us on earth, even father to Satan who later rebelled, oversaw the creation, but that the actual work was done by at least Christ and Adam, first man, if not perhaps more.

And as Sinned explained further below, Mormons believe that God the Father was once a mortal man like we are now, living on an earth like we are now, who learned over time and progression all knowledge and all power, which I personally believe includes the knowledge of science and using science as his power. Thus, following thru with that doctrine logically, if God the Father was once a mortal man, that means He too had a God the Father, His own God who was His Father. And LDS doctrine also teaches that as sons and daughters of our God the Father, we can become gods like He is now. Thus, LDS doctrine or belief truly does teach of a plurality of gods, which I have no doubt have created and will create their own worlds without number and populate them with their own children.

Pretty interesting, eh, even if one chooses not to subscribe to the Mormon beliefs!

[Sinned]

All, please don't think that PB and I are preaching - educating, perhaps, because the LDS church has generated many misconceptions and nothing that we say can convince you if you don't want to be convinced! Don't want to upset anyone and go against one of the cardinal rules of the community in talking about religion. I'm reminded of Alice and the Queen's dialogue:

"Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.""

Like most of you I read other theories about how the universe is put together and these evolve over time. The Holographic Universe theory has a sense to it but whether it's right or not we can't yet tell, but it's interesting nonetheless. Maybe they all fit in together to form one Grand Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything ( for which the answer is probably NOT 42 ) as Hawking et all are trying to put together a Unified Field Theory but aren't quite there yet. Our beliefs are personal and I have found it fascinating to read yours.

PS Just come across this from Alice's Wonderland:

"Children yet, the tale to hear,
Eager eye and willing ear,
Lovingly shall nestle near.
In a Wonderland they lie,
Dreaming as the days go by,
Dreaming as the summers die:

Ever drifting down the stream —
Lingering in the golden gleam —
Life, what is it but a dream?"

[crfriend]

All, please don't think that PB and I are preaching - educating, perhaps, because the LDS church has generated many misconceptions and nothing that we say can convince you if you don't want to be convinced!

[mod hat on]

Gentlemen, rest assured that if any of the moderation staff perceived this as preaching or proselytizing then this thread would have been shut down in less than a heartbeat.

Thus far, everyone is showing quite the restraint as far as getting upset over it, and, quite frankly, I can't think of another forum where the audience is so diverse and where discourse has stayed so civil for this length of time. Take a bow, everybody, for that speaks volumes about the quality of character here.

[Mod hat off] {scratch, scratch, scratch}

Even I am finding the different points of view interesting, and that says something.