Dear Readers,
I just read an article by Burton W. Folsom, Jr., in Imprimis, a monthly newsletter/pamphlet from Hillsdale College titled “Do We Need a New New Deal?” The article compared what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression to what Obama is doing now. Mr. Folsom ends his article this way: “If history is a guide, we have every reason to believe that if President Obama institutes a New New Deal, then universal health care, federal bailouts, and jobs stimulus programs will be costly, will be politicized, and will fail.”
And then I thought, “You’re preaching to the choir, Mr. Folsom!” I already know that! That’s what I’ve been telling people about and that’s what I’ve been thinking a lot about lately- the economy- how the economic ideas of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney really are better than the economic ideas of FDR and Barack Obama.
After I read Imprimis, I started reading the other thing I got in the mail today, the Ensign, and, wouldn’t you know it, there was an article about self-reliance! Of course it doesn’t talk politics. The article says nothing about how to run a government or the bail-out plan or anything specifically political. No surprise there. But one quote caught my attention. It was this quote by Ezra Taft Benson, one of the former Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
“The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”
When I read it I thought, Wow- how relevant that is to all the arguing about the bailout plan and such! Maybe I should stop reading the news, stop getting worked up about politics and the economy, and maybe I should just say to everybody, “Believe in Christ and do what he says, and then all this financial stuff will work itself out.”
But then, in another way, I am a practical person with practical concerns. When we ask the questions, “How much should government tax people? Where should the money go?” we have to have specific answers, and we have to do specific things. Guiding principles “Believe in and follow Jesus Christ” are great and wonderful and essential and soul-saving, but really we are all specific people in specific situations, so that makes me think that it’s OK and necessary and good to take a stand on political issues- to argue about politics. Giving wishy-washy feel-good vague generalities only goes so far. You can’t run a business or run a country on wishy-washy feel-good vague generalities- you have to decide what cause or organization gets how much money and when and in what manner. You have to answer specific questions like who works what hours, and who gets paid what amount and blah blah blah.
I do believe that Barack Obama and small-government conservatives alike agree with the same wishy-washy feel good generality, “America should be fiscally healthy. Freedom should ring in the air.” I really do believe that the vast majority of politicians want what’s best for the USA. In fact, I respect Obama as my president and I wish him and his administration the best. But then when it comes to the means to the end, when it comes to achieving “what’s best for the country,” when it comes to making laws and policies that achieve that generality, that’s where liberals and conservatives differ.
Sometimes I wish God would tell us, via the Scriptures or via a mass dream, what the perfect government solution is- how to arrange ourselves best socially- how to best regulate our economic interactions with other people. Sometimes I wish God would be very explicit about how we go about setting up Utopia. And sometimes I wish God would be very specific about a lot of other things that seem to fall into the gray area, like non-alcoholic beer. I had a sip of it last Thanksgiving, or maybe it was Christmas, and I wasn’t sure if I should feel guilty about it or not. Ha ha ha.
But God isn’t specific about some things.
Isn’t it interesting that the scriptures do not tell us how we ought to set up governments, really? I mean, he knows everything, and the Kingdom of Heaven is perfectly organized, and surely he could tell us how to organize ourselves down here the same way they organize themselves up there.
Remember what the Lord’s Prayer says: “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.” So the people who say that prayer, to my understanding, are asking God to have things done on earth the same way things are done in Heaven; we want the same organization that’s in Heaven to be put on the Earth. Maybe that’s a bit of a stretch. Maybe I’m reading things into the text that aren’t really there. But there’s also the phrase, “Thy kingdom come,” which I guess is asking for the millennial reign to hurry up and get here so Jesus can rule us personally.
(Although I just thought that I guess the closest type of Heavenly government we have on Earth would be a monarchy. Heavenly Father is the King of Heaven, and he sits “enthroned in yonder heavens,” as I think Joseph Smith put it once, and Jesus sits on the right hand of Heavenly Father… so, but… monarchies aren’t the greatest when you put them in the hands of fallible men. If we had God himself as a king to rule us, that would be great, I’m sure, but we don’t have God on earth to rule us; we get people like King George III.
Even though we don’t have God to rule over us personally right now, at least in any literal political way, we do have a lot of good men and women to lead us. And I want to find the really good ones, you know, and elect them to office. Yes, I think character counts, when looking into a political candidate. That’s what we teach children in school, you know- character counts. Most schools have some kind of character class or life skills or life-values class, and they teach people about hard work, honesty, respect, discipline, etc. And if we teach them to our children then we ought to live those principles ourselves and blah blah blah.
I suppose we could look into the scriptures and see what type of governments righteous people set up, to get some clues about how to run our own government. The Bible and the Book of Mormon both have examples of what I would call a theocratic government. And how did they work out? OK, I guess, sometimes. But don’t take my word for it- read the scriptures and see for yourself! :)
I want to bring up one other thing. Harry Reid. Have you heard about this guy? He’s the Democratic Senate majority leader from Nevada, and he is very pro-stimulus package. Right now Harry Reid is probably busy trying to get the $800,000,000,000 bill passed in the Senate. In a lot of ways, he’s what many would call liberal.
He’s also Mormon.
When I first found out about Harry Reid, I was like, “Huh?” I still wonder, “Why is a temple-attending Mormon in good standing supporting the stimulus bill and being so… so… democratic and liberal?” I know I’m sounding horrible, and I know there are plenty of great Mormons who are Democrats and liberal in their outlook on government and social policies, and I’m not out to offend anyone, but this is how I feel about Harry Reid sometimes. Personally I’m glad I’m not his bishop or his stake president, because I would have a hard time signing his temple recommend. Ha ha ha. Isn’t that horrible?
Here’s my explanation for Harry Reid: He’s a great guy who is trying to be Christ-like. Harry Reid must frequently read the Bible story where Jesus feeds the thousands miraculously, and I bet Mitt Romney frequently reads, “By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread.” Both those outlooks are OK, really.
You know, and maybe Al Gore is Bible-based too. Maybe when Al jets around the world raising money to combat global warming, he’s just thinking about scriptures like Isaiah 24:6, where Isaiah is prophesying about the last days. (I took the liberty of speaking for Al Gore by inserting Gore’s interpretations in brackets)
“Therefore hath the curse [carbon emissions] devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein [especially people who drive SUVs and don’t buy the new twisty-looking light bulbs and have more than 1.9 children] are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, [the logic is simple: modernity = carbon emissions = more heat = mega-death] and few men [men like me, Al Gore] left.”
Wow, I guess when we look at things that way, Al Gore isn’t so bad after all- he’s just doing what he thinks is Bible-approoved and best for the planet.
Sincerely,
Telemoonfa
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey Tele-?, I read some of your comments on a recommend from a close friend. To be quite honest, I don't know what the hell you are talking about when you rant about the Obama administration. Let's see, the guy has been in office for less than a month and instead of supporting your President, giving him let's say a year or two to try and correct some of the blatant mistakes of the past administration, you've decided to join the ever decreasing minority of close-minded religionists and decry anything left of some arbitrary conservative political, economic and/or social standard. (and don't give me that bull that you are praying and/or supporting him, blah, blah, blah...)
Why are you so narrow-minded? I agree it is HORRIBLE (as you yourself stated), to be coerced into behaving a certain way based upon GUILT. That's how your god works, huh? Making you feel guilty for desiring something that some nut (aka Joseph Smith), stated was sinful? Or some other nut who claims to be, or is chosen to be the on-earth representative of the Almighty? (aka Pope, the Prophet, Ayatollah, etc.).
From what I've read of your musings, I can only feel sorry for you and your confined/restrictive worldview. I think that you are sincere but deluded and controlled by fear. It's called xenophobia.
I believe that we (the human race) will need to transform our consciousness through a paradigm shift in our understanding of what it means to be human, so we can exist in peaceful relations with ourselves and others. Otherwise, we will be doomed to witness our own extinction as a species, which might not be such a "horrible" thing.
Your cosmology is simplistic and anthropomorphic in essence. It's outdated and only serves as a tool to keep us separated from one another in ways innumerable.
My hope for you is catharsis and inner peace, free from guilt and conformity. And it comes from within you.
....
Dear Anonymous,
What I'm talking about when I rant about the Obama administration is a lot of the same stuff that the members of Congress who voted against the stimulus are talking about. What I'm talking about is very similar to what Mitt Romney talked about in this speech:
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/blog/item/2009/01/30/overnoromneysemarktotheouseepublicanonferenceetreat
I am not alone in my dislike of the new stimulus bill. I disagree with Obama's ideas on how to fix the economy, that's all. I'm sure he's a great guy and I really do think that he has good intentions.
Your comments about being forced into something by guilt are interesting. I'm not really sure if there is such a thing as being forced into something by guilt. When I think about "force" I think about threats of violence or physically holding someone down and not letting them get up and stuff like that. But I just realized that God uses threats of violence, too, not just guilt. Ha ha ha.
God definitely has things that he wants us to do, and he uses many methods in an attempt to be persuasive, but I believe that God does not often literally force people to do things. I do not believe in pre-destination. I believe that humans are pretty much free to choose what they want to do.
As for your comments about Joseph Smith and the Pope and people like that... do you believe that nobody is in better touch with God, (or the Truth with a capitol T if you don't want to use the word “God”) than anybody else? That is, do you think that everybody, right now, has equal access to the throne of God?
I don't think so. I think that some people are more qualified to tell us about God than other people. I think that there are people who have studied more about God than other people- some people who are more in touch with Divinity than other people. It's like this in all fields and careers, really. People who have been to medical school definitely know more about cancer than I do. So, I put my trust in a certified doctor to diagnose that funny lump on my back.
Likewise, I put my trust in other people, to a certain extent, who I feel are qualified to tell me about God. There are people that have studied the Scriptures diligently for years, spent lots of time fasting and praying and thinking about eternity and the things of the soul- there are people who have done those spiritual activities more than I have. In a way, this concept is fundamental for many religions. Muhammad was more enlightened than his followers. Buddha was more enlightened than his followers. Jesus was more enlightened than his followers. The followers trusted in their religious leaders.
(I’m not saying that we should blindly follow any one person, though. Just like we try to seek out the best doctors to treat our illnesses, we should seek out the best people who claim to be in touch with God. We need to use our own brains and hearts to decide who is right and who is wrong.)
Your comment seems to attack not just my particular religion, but most organized religions. Expect maybe Unitarian Universalism. Maybe you should look in to Unitarian Universalism, by the way. You might like it.
Maybe you think that religion is an outmoded tool, and that only backwoods, superstitious people like me give religion any credence. Well… you’re entitled to your opinion. It sounds like you believe in some sort of spirituality, though. I guess just not organized religion. Maybe you are deist- you believe you can know God’s ways better through spending time in nature alone than you can reading Scripture or going to church. Or maybe you don’t want any spiritual label. Maybe I shouldn’t call you an agnostic or a secular humanist or a Deist or a Unitarian Universalist. Maybe you don’t want to be affiliated with any organization that claims to have more Truth than other people.
I’d be interested to know, what cosmic paradigm shift are you talking about? Does it involve yoga? I don’t mean to make light of your beliefs, but, can you spell out your articles of faith a little more clearly? For example, what does it mean, exactly, to understand “what it means to be human”? Or, is any attempt to spell out your beliefs in more concrete terms flawed from the start?
I believe that my church provides very concrete explanations about what “being human” means. I believe my church pretty clearly states fundamental truths like our relationship to Deity, our purpose on Earth, the way we should treat others and ourselves. My church has tons and tons of literature about “what it means to be human,” but for starters, here’s the Articles of Faith, written by Joseph Smith in the early 1800s: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1 And before you call him a nut again I wish that you would read and think slowly about the literature Joseph Smith has produced.
Well, thanks for you comment, and I hope my response has been helpful.
Sincerely,
Telemoonfa
Thanks for responding. I'll consider what you wrote and get back to you in a few days.
Once again, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue, although I must admit I may not be able respond in a timely manner at times.
So be it...First, I would like to comment on your selection of individuals upon whom you rely for information. It doesn't sound like you really thought about any of the issues at all, instead you listen to and/or read so-called conservative politicians' viewpoints on the issues. Your opinions are shaped by what you choose to believe. It's so obvious.
Second, I never used the word "forced" into anything be guilt. I used coerce. Two different words, similar meanings. But I only mention this because I surmise that you are one to pay attention to subtlety, when it suits your purpose.
Nevertheless, your idea about God using threats of violence is interesting, if not only simply for your idea of what a "loving God" is. It sheds light on your psychological perspective.
Explain to me your definition of an omniscient God who has knowledge of all things (otherwise, what kind of a god would it be if it wasn't infinite, correct?), and yet doesn't know who is "chosen" few will be? If he has knowledge of who his "true" followers are and will be (future tense), doesn't he then allow that to come to pass? Wouldn't an all-powerful god (omnipotent) be able to change the future? You have lots of studying to do if you think you can wrestle out these answers better than the 15th & 16th century theologians did many moons ago.
Which brings me to my next point. Your assertions that based upon a certain "academic" sophistication and or pedigree that certain individuals are somehow "closer" to or have more "knowledge" of God than others. I've studied the Scriptures diligently for decades, does that make me an expert? Why is one person an expert and another not? Better school? Harvard v. BYU, for instance? Slippery slope here, my friend.
It's funny how you say that Muhammad, Buddha or Jesus were "more" enlightened than their followers. That's not what I understand when I hear Jesus mention, "Greater things will you do in my name", or Buddha when he mentions that enlightenment/nirvana is equally available for all.
What I really think is amusing is that the opposite of your reasoning is central to the message that Jesus himself preached. Who did he rail against and condemn the MOST of all his contemporaries? The Romans? The pagans? The common folk? NO, the religious leaders and authorities of his day. The "white-washed sepulchers" filled with the bones of men. Constantly, he was either defending himself against their accusations or their religious "expertise". What did these religious leaders say of Jesus? "Who is this man who is not yet 40 years old to be instructing us?". The scriptures are filled with these dialogues. Just look at the parables, e.g. The Good Samaritan. And on and on...
Who were Jesus' followers? Fisherman, hardly the intellectual powerhouses of their day, would you not agree? I mean, for Christ's sake (no pun intended), Jesus was a carpenter. Not an intellectual with a pedigree that you seem to really value. (Paul is another matter entirely, better left for another discussion.) In fact, was it not the very religious leaders, held in such high esteem by their followers, who were instrumental in the crucifixion of Jesus? His accusers, no less?
You know what I've discovered after reading dozens and dozens and dozens of so-called expert's opinions? They're like a....holes, everyone has one. Their opinions are no more valid than mine. Or yours, or anyone else's. In fact, how do you reconcile the life of the mystics? The ignorant who converse with God? The "simple folk" who Jesus himself said are closer than the "experts"? Didn't Jesus himself say you must be "like a child"? You can't have it both ways.
I don't need to examine another religious "system" like Unitarians, etc. Why? Just another opinion about how I should lead MY life. I don't need anyone telling, advising, recommending what I should believe unless I choose to believe it on my own. Period.
The paradigm shift I am referring to is not an 8-volume dissertation on my "articles of faith". It is just a common sense intuition on my part. (You might disagree on my definition of "common sense"). I don't need articles of faith. Merely words or declarations created by men who NEED them. And then the endless commentaries from everyone else trying to explain what it all means. Oh, the tedium...
I CHOOSE TO MAKE UP MY OWN MIND AND MEET WHATEVER DEITY MIGHT EXIST FACE TO FACE. I HAVE A FEW THINGS I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH "IT".
Yours truly,
Anonymous
Anonymous,
Look! I thought about what you wrote and I wrote back.
“It doesn't sound like you really thought about any of the issues at all”
Yes I have.
“Your opinions are shaped by what you choose to believe.”
So are yours.
“Nevertheless, your idea about God using threats of violence is interesting, if not only simply for your idea of what a "loving God" is. It sheds light on your psychological perspective.”
I guess you think that a loving God would never inflict pain or suffering on anybody. I disagree. When the circumstances are appropriate, I think God does resort to violence. Let’s see… There was the Flood and the destruction of the Tower of Babel and lot of other stuff like that, where God was responsible for the death and pain of a lot of people. There are also examples where God kills people one at a time, like when Uzzah tried to steady the Ark of the Covenant and was immediately struck down by God. (2 Samuel 6: 6-8) There are many other examples of God killing and hurting people, or threatening to kill and hurt people, in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
And at the end of the world there’s gonna be some really violent things going on. Righteous angels are gonna pour lots of holy gasoline on the Earth, and then another angel’s gonna say a prayer, light a holy match, and then drop it, and the world will ignite. And maybe if I say my prayers enough, I’ll get to be the angel at the end of the world who drops the match. Or maybe I’ll be given a Heavenly Sword and given the charge of slicing up some heathens.
Loving people do use threats of violence sometimes. Police officers, soldiers, President Barack Obama- they all use violence, after other peaceful methods don’t work. (Obama recently approved 17,000 more troops to go to Afghanistan http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090217/D96DJ2V80.html) America has tried again and again to gain peace in the Middle East through diplomatic means. But again and again, Al Qaeda and other radical organizations don’t listen to peaceful, diplomatic negotiations. They only listen to violence.
Sorry! I apologize for the way things are. I wish that nobody, even God, would ever have to resort to violence. But we live in a fallen world, so sometimes violence is necessary.
Luckily I’ve never been in a fight before. I hope I never have to be. But I do believe that if it came down to it, I would fight, literally, for my wife and my children and for certain rights. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said that maybe I’ll be the one to light the world on fire in the end of days, and maybe I shouldn’t have said that maybe I’ll be the one to slice up heathens with a holy sword. I really don’t want to be violent myself, but I understand that somebody’s gotta do it. Whether it’s me or another destroying angel or God Himself, somebody has eventually got to kill wicked people, to force them into submission.
Aren’t you glad that there were some Allied forces who used violence and went after a wicked man like Adolf Hitler? Aren’t you glad that there were some brave soldiers who used violence and fought against the British in the American Revolution, soldiers who fought against taxation without representation and other messed-up stuff like that? Aren’t you glad that some people become prison guards and executioners?
I love this quote by George Orwell: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
And we’re not talking about a metaphorical fight or metaphorical, mental violence. We’re not talking about subscribing to an idea or signing a petition- we’re talking about shooting people with guns. We’re talking about the blood and guts involved.
The Israelites led by Moses did a practice that I personally would have a hard time with. They stoned a man to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. The whole community came together and threw rocks at the sinner until the sinner was dead. (We can’t ignore these parts of scripture. We don’t talk about these harsh Old Testament stories very much in Sunday School, but I think we need to come to terms with all the stuff in the Bible- all the stuff that was translated correctly- and make an accounting of all the stories and doctrines we find uncomfortable. Of course sometimes we need to rely on faith and just believe that God knows what’s best, but God also gave us brains, and he wants us to use them, for the scripture says, “The glory of God is intelligence.”) (D + C 93:36)
So we need to think about these uncomfortable or politically incorrect things from the Scriptures. Uncomfortable things like God killing Uzzah, and like polygamy, and like Abraham being commanded to kill his only son, and like the ancient Israelites being commanded by God to annihilate the Hittites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and a lot of other -ites (Deuteronomy 20:17) and eventually be at peace with these stories and these doctrines. We cannot only accept and worship a God who gives pleasant things to everybody all the time. We can’t only think about the obviously-positive things like Jesus healing the blind and miraculously feeding the multitudes and such. God is not merely a sky-dwelling pleasure dispenser. We have to accept God for the vengeful, violent, passionate God he sometimes is. We need to have an attitude like Job’s: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him [God].” (Job 13:15)
About my thoughts on God’s use of violence only being a reflection of my psychological perspective… it’s hard for me to counter this point. I’ve heard stuff like that before. All I can say is that I believe that there really is a God and I can really get to understand his attributes through prayer and scripture study and other righteous behavior, and I believe that some of the attributes of God include love and also a readiness to use violence.
I guess you believe that when people pray, they are not really talking to God, but are only talking to a different part of themselves. I guess you think that an expression of faith in God is a cause for medication rather than celebration. So be it.
“Explain to me your definition of an omniscient God who has knowledge of all things (otherwise, what kind of a god would it be if it wasn't infinite, correct?), and yet doesn't know who is "chosen" few will be?”
I don’t get the question. God does know who his chosen few will be. “God’s chosen few,” I think, is a misunderstood concept. I think people sort of choose themselves to be chosen by God, through their behavior and desires. Remember that everyone is invited to the supper of the Lord, including you! I hear there’s gonna be some really yummy food there! Let’s go!
“If he has knowledge of who his "true" followers are and will be (future tense), doesn't he then allow that to come to pass? Wouldn't an all-powerful god (omnipotent) be able to change the future?”
Maybe I don’t get the question either, but, yes, God knows who his followers will be, and he knows what will happen in the future. And yes he allows things to happen. He allows people to make use of their own free agency- their free will, their right to make whatever choices they want to make. (But they can’t choose the consequences that come from their choices.)
I guess your question is: “Why doesn’t God make everybody his chosen people, eliminate evil and suffering, and take everybody to heaven right now?” Is that right? Well, I think that God allows the devil to tempt humans, so that people can have the option of choosing evil. People are tested, and become more God-like, when they learn to choose good over evil. I believe that the two main purposes of coming to this world are: 1) to get a physical body and 2) to be tested.
Maybe I’m being repetitive, and maybe I’m also being repetitive, but God allows evil in the world because he wants to test people and see what they’re made of. He wants people to develop God-like attributes. And you can’t develop God-like attributes if everything is hunky-dory all the time.
Here is something that might be unique, or kind of unique, to Mormon theology, and hopefully it’s not too off track of our conversation: There are certain things God can’t do. (On second thought, maybe it’s not unique to Mormon theology at all. Maybe lots of people believe that.)
(Not that I am an official source of Mormon theology, but I’m happy to give you my opinion about what official Mormon theology means to me.)
I know the scriptures say, “With God all things are possible.” (Mark 10: 27) But… I guess I don’t take that Scripture literally. Because in another scripture, D + C 82:10, it says, “I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” So, it is not possible for God to deny his word when people keep up their end of the bargain- that’s at least one thing he can’t do. I don’t think God could just stop existing, either. And God cannot give an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom to somebody who is unfit for it. (I’m reminded of this funny/ dumb riddle thing: could God create a rock that was so heavy that he couldn’t pick it up?) I believe, and I’ve heard it expressed by Mormons before, that God is governed by certain eternal principles, like mercy and justice. God has to follow rules, too. God can’t make 2 plus 2 equal 5.
“You have lots of studying to do if you think you can wrestle out these answers better than the 15th & 16th century theologians did many moons ago.”
Yeah, you’re right about that, but I have an advantage that the 15th and 16th century theologians did not have; I have the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“I've studied the Scriptures diligently for decades, does that make me an expert? Why is one person an expert and another not? Better school?”
Have you really studied the Scriptures for decades, or were you speaking hypothetically?
I can’t understand how you can’t understand that one person is more qualified than another person to talk authoritatively about God. That seems like a very clear concept to me. Compare someone you think is spiritual and someone you think is carnal. You’re saying their both equally qualified to teach about God? Compare Howard Stern to Thomas S. Monson. Are you saying that both those men are equally spiritually in tune with God?
Oh, and I’m not talking about a man-made academic qualification to be the mouthpiece of God. I was trying to compare seeking after God to seeking after worldly education. God often calls obscure shepherds and farm boys to be prophets.
“Greater things you will do in my name” Where is that scripture? I put it into the searchable text of the scriptures on lds.org and couldn’t find it. I’d like to know the context of it.
“Buddha when he mentions that enlightenment/nirvana is equally available for all.”
Yes, I agree with you, enlightenment/nirvana is equally available for all, but not everybody chooses to seek after enlightenment/nirvana! All are invited to the supper of the Lord. But some accept the invitation, and others reject the invitation. That’s how people get to be more spiritually enlightened than other people. I was careful to ask, ”That is, do you think that everybody, right now, has equal access to the throne of God?” Notice that I put “right now” in there. I think everybody has the potential to see the face of God, but not everybody has acted or will act on that potential.
Whew! Responding to you took forever. But I enjoyed it. Oh, and I don’t mean to offend you or anything like that. If I’ve sounded flippant, well… I sounded flippant, but I mean well. I really do. See you later.
Sincerely,
Telemoonfa
Telemoonfa,
Just a few more thoughts. You are correct that my opinions are also shaped by what I choose to believe. Everyone's are.
I have to let you know that your references to the Bible and other writings of the Mormons are meaningless to me. They are simply stories/myths written by men during the Bronze Age (except for the Mormon writings, of course). I just think it is bizarre that that type of deity appeals to you. Of course, none of these accounts are historically viable. The flood? The Tower of Babel? You're kidding me right? You might find my lack of regard for your church myths and writings offensive, but I am not trying to condescend. But it is so ridiculous.
And you want to be the angel who ignites the world and its inhabitants on fire? Wow, does that speak volumes about your inner psychological world? Burn up your family too, huh? No, they would all be "saved" right? How convenient and utterly repulsive. Heathens? Maybe some heathen will exact some type of cosmic revenge on your family someday, huh? Maybe rape your wife and children before your eyes before he maims you and leaves you a cripple alone and desolate to ruminate on your fate. How does that sound? Sort of like you doesn't it?
Haven't you ever heard that an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind?
You mention that you would fight for your family or children. How easily you dismiss the recommendation of Jesus to turn the other cheek. Jesus didn't fight back when he was lead to his crucifixion. But I guess that doesn't count because you'll probably have some other convenient excuse for not really living like Christ, even though you pretend that you do.
Actually, I'm not glad that there were brave colonials who fought against the British because none of them should have been here in the first place. Have you forgotten that this country was populated by millions of natives who were the victims of genocide just like the Jews in WW2?
And yes, I have studied the Bible and many other writings for decades. And like I mentioned before, everyone always has their own opinion. There is no universal truth. You can't prove it, nobody can. You can only believe what you want to. I choose to believe something other than what you choose to believe. However, I don't have fantasies about being some angel that will destroy other humans in some sort of twisted righteous judgment or some such nonsense.
I know that you and I will be incapable of surmounting the obstacles that lie between our respective belief systems, so I will no longer be commenting on your blog about this topic. But after reading what you wrote back to me I feel like I want to vomit. It's so sad.
Good luck Telemoonfa, and good night...
Anonymous
Post a Comment