Conflict between Mormon and Biblical teachings

@philokalia said
What is life progressing towrds?

Let me guess: it's just all about the subjective meaning that you can muster up to ascribe to life, and that is the stand-in for real meaning?

I don't believe that religious aspirations regarding everlasting life ~ and obeying a code that is thought to lead to that ~ provide meaning in a person's life that can be described as any more or less "real meaning" than not believing in everlasting life. But I see what you did there.

@philokalia said
Are they based off of unverifiable claims? Of course, aspects of them are, but the common argument is that there was a whole series of miracles surrounding the life and testimony of Jesus Christ that were witnessed by thousands that became his loyal followers.

This is not exactly how it happened with the Prophet Mohammed. I believe the only claim to a miracle is the ...[text shortened]... nsider dedicating some of that time to crafting large, masterful, and exhaustive posts on the topic.

Suffice to say, if one does not subscribe to the history ancient Hebrews wrote about themselves and if one doesn't believe that anything supernatural happened to Paul and if one doesn't believe that the Book of Revelation is anything other than a kind of hoax, one is supposed to believe that one is, therefore, going to miss out on immortality or even be punished, then that doesn't seem credible. It seems more like something that the human imagination has conjured up. Presumably, it comes off as 'divine' to you.

@philokalia said
Not only this, but the messages of these religions can be seen as likewise very different from one another.

Now, why you would equate them is beyond me

The fact that any given set of religions are "different from one another" is irrelevant. The extent to which I would "equate them" - your words, not mine - is that they all claim to be "revealed" religions. How that perspective can be beyond you, frankly, is beyond me. Although, I realize it's probably just argumentum ad hyperbole on your part.

@fmf said
The fact that any given set of religions are "different from one another" is irrelevant. The extent to which I would "equate them" - your words, not mine - is that they all claim to be "revealed" religions. How that perspective can be beyond you, frankly, is beyond me. Although, I realize it's probably just argumentum ad hyperbole on your part.

(I) Yes, you must certainly be a very valued & respected poster to put up those amazing numbers like nobody else can here in Spirituality. You should be proud of yourself.

(II) If you do not want to discuss how your beliefs interact with nihilism because you've done it so many times before, sure...?

I guess this gives Sonship and whoever else totally free reign to never, ever discuss a point about hell again if this becomes the precedent.

(III) So if a man were to tell you that he was abducted by aliens and Hillary Clinton is a lizard person, and God has sent him on a mission to defeat the lizard people, this would be qualitatively the same as a Professor of Islamic Philosophy telling you about why he is a Muslim by your logic, right?

... These things are completely different, and the varying instances of revealed truth cannot be lumped together without it sounding absurd.

@philokalia said
(I) Yes, you must certainly be a very valued & respected poster to put up those amazing numbers like nobody else can here in Spirituality. You should be proud of yourself.

(II) If you do not want to discuss how your beliefs interact with nihilism because you've done it so many times before, sure...?

I guess this gives Sonship and whoever else totally free re ...[text shortened]... the varying instances of revealed truth cannot be lumped together without it sounding absurd.

I am not a nihilist. You are not using the word correctly. It isn't an antonym for religionist.

@philokalia said
These things are completely different, and the varying instances of revealed truth cannot be lumped together without it sounding absurd.

The fact that "revealed" religions are not the same as each other does not mean that any of them are true. It would be absurd to suggest that Islam is true BECAUSE it is different from Christianity or from Judaism, or any other permutation.

@philokalia said
I guess this gives Sonship and whoever else totally free reign to never, ever discuss a point about hell again if this becomes the precedent.

sonship has been dodging questions about the moral incoherence of his torturer god ideology for years and years. This is already an outcome of his "free reign"

@fmf said
The fact that "revealed" religions are not the same as each other does not mean that any of them are true. It would be absurd to suggest that Islam is true BECAUSE it is different from Christianity or from Judaism, or any other permutation.

I do not accept anything within the Hindu tradition as true. Of course, some of it can be incidentally true, and some of it involves good, moral stories of wholesome character with solid messages. But, generally speaking, there is nothing revealed in Hinduism that I would ever say is the revealed truth of God.

Yet, I believe that Hindus are far different from people who believe they are on some mission from God against the lizard people or that gray aliens are demons and we have to rally around "the one" to stop them (I did read about this once).

I also believe Hinduism is very different from L. Ron Hubbard making up stories & convincing people to join the cult of scientology...

And, of course, I believe that Hinduism & Islam are very different as well, and that a Shi'ite who listened quite closely to the words of Imam Ali would have a lot in common with me, though they would not be a co-religionist of mine. Their revelations in the Koran would not be true, but still, it means something to me...

You see, these distinctions are all meaningful and rich to me, yet I reject the revealed truth of all of them.

I can only say that it would benefit you to actually engage the material brought forward and to not shallowly lump it all in together and dismiss it collectively. That's sloppy and ignorant.

... But yeah, I guess, I do see the point that if you reject God then all revealed truth is wrong, yet, to ever put Christ and Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard in a single boat is offensive.

@philokalia said
So if a man were to tell you that he was abducted by aliens and Hillary Clinton is a lizard person, and God has sent him on a mission to defeat the lizard people, this would be qualitatively the same as a Professor of Islamic Philosophy telling you about why he is a Muslim by your logic, right?

The Professor of Islamic Philosophy telling me about why he is a Muslim would impart a lot of interesting information, no doubt, about anthropology, culture, history and social psychology. The man talking about how he was abducted by aliens and how Hillary Clinton is a lizard person and how God has sent him on a mission to defeat the lizard people would be less interesting.

@philokalia said
If you do not want to discuss how your beliefs interact with nihilism because you've done it so many times before, sure...?

Perhaps you will stumble across one of the threads. They come up here all the time. The last time you called me a "nihilist" because I am not religious ~ about 3 months ago ~ I wrote a fairly long post and told you exactly what I thought was the meaning of life for me. Unfortunately, you just blanked it out.

@fmf said
I am not a nihilist. You are not using the word correctly. It isn't an antonym for religionist.

Nihilist is often a word that is defined when it is used because it s not used so frequently. It is something that lends itself well to specialized definitions of what things are because it is philosophical in nature.

You may recollect that I have talked about how I use it many times, and I use it in the same sense as Fr. Seraphim Rose.

You would have known that when I was speaking to you about it many months ago.

And, surely, you are aware that a specialized definition of the word would be employed in philosophy from time to time, and if someone presents such a specialized definition, it is relevant.

But, sure, we can go to Merriam-Webster and take a look at some potential definitions:

: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
Nihilism is a condition in which all ultimate values lose their value.
— Ronald H. Nash
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism

You fit well under 1b, don't you?

You are also a moral pragmatist in light of this, generally speaking, aren't you?

Then, you are a nihilist not only by a Merriam-Webster definition, but very much fit the bill under the definition provided by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

But yes, feel free to say why you aren't.

And maybe, just as how you don't mince words with people who believe in torture-god ideologies, I'll be very happy to keep calling this one as I see it: you are a nihilist.

@philokalia said
I can only say that it would benefit you to actually engage the material brought forward and to not shallowly lump it all in together and dismiss it collectively. That's sloppy and ignorant.

I "lump" them together - your words, not mine - in so far as they are all supposedly "revealed" religions, all of which I find non-credible.

I don't deny they are different. What cultural "richness" or what doctrines they each may have is not relevant to the bald fact that I do not see divine inspiration in any of them.

This does not mean I am "ignorant" about world religions. What you try to dismiss as "shallow" and "sloppy", is, in fact, just conciseness.

@philokalia said
You may recollect that I have talked about how I use it many times, and I use it in the same sense as Fr. Seraphim Rose. You would have known that when I was speaking to you about it many months ago.

You simply ignored my responses to what you said back then. They are still there waiting for you if you are now suddenly purporting to be interested.

@fmf said
I "lump" them together - your words, not mine - in so far as they are all supposedly "revealed" religions, all of which I find non-credible.

I don't deny they are different. What cultural "richness" or what doctrines they each may have is not relevant to the bald fact that I do not see divine inspiration in any of them.

This does not mean I am "ignorant" about world religions. What you try to dismiss as "shallow" and "sloppy", is, in fact, just conciseness.

(I) Oh, OK, I understand that you may not want to be put that much effort into discussing something like religion here, and so you do not want to bother to make many distinctions between religious sects, and in that end... It might make sense to point out that believing no revealed truth is in religion, they are all the same in this regard.

And maybe I read too far into your remarks when I point out that they are a bit flippant. After all, who really knows what you are thinking about them -- there isn't much elaboration or text.

(II) Well, you know, it is hard to dig up an old thread like that. Do you have a link to it? I can gladly reply there. But, generally speaking, if a thread has not been active for over a month, it is locked, right?

Or would you like to repeat your argument?

@philokalia said
And maybe, just as how you [i]don't mince words with people who believe in torture-god ideologies, I'll be very happy to keep calling this one as I see it: you are a nihilist.

If, by "nihilist", you seek to suggest that I am "a person who believes that life is meaningless and [I am one who] rejects all religious and moral principles", then you are mistaken.

If you want to converse with other religious people and talk about how you think I believe that life is meaningless and how I reject all religious and moral principles because I am not religious, it is your prerogative to do that. But it's rhetorical water off a duck's back to me.