Formulated Religion
I went to Campus Ambassadors last Thursday night - even though I had a test Friday morning. (Sometimes I am sort of stubborn and do things that could be potentially unwise.) They had a Mormon there to talk about difference(s) between Mormonism and Christianity and answer questions the students had. I think some of the students could have acted in a more respectful manner while the man was there. While I do not believe Mormonism is the truth, it does not give me any license to get riled up againt its adherents.
Why would someone (ie Joseph Smith) start a religion based on a book that they themselves wrote and know to be a lie? Such a person would either be really evil or very self-deceived.
Assuming "self-deceived" to be the case...it is difficult for me to understand people who manufacture their own religious beliefs and derive meaning from them. It seems that people should desire to know absolute truth.
I wonder what the writer(s) of the Urantia Book thought about it. Did he/they really believe it was the truth? Or was he/they just having fun/desiring power (definitely, it would have been fun to write - it is pretty imaginative from what I've seen - but I can't see deceiving others with it)?
It's been almost three weeks since I went to that debate between a Christian man and a feminist woman (Susan Shaw). The Christian was pretty fundamental in what he said - largely because of that I remember more of Susan's discussion than his.
Ms. Shaw was raised in a Southern Baptist home and went to a theological seminary. She began to view suffering as requiring a different view of God - if God was omnipotent, she would have expected him to not allow suffering. She has formulated a set of beliefs based on what makes sense to her. Where is the desire to know absolute truth?
Progress theology made more sense to her than a traditional Christian view of God. Progress theology states: that God is being but not a being; that God does not have the power to inhibit natural processes; that "evil" is when a person keeps someone from fulfilling their full potential. When asked how that definition of evil related to abortion (which obviously keeps someone from fulfilling their full potential), Susan skirted the issue and stated that she was not "pro-abortion" but rather "pro-choice" because she did not believe it was her right to state what another woman could do with her body.
She had a definite problem with a paternalistic view of the world as it focuses (by her definition) on suffering, war, etc. She rejects the story of Christ's resurrection and possibly crucifixion because they are related to death - and yet she still calls herself a Christian (she has retained some Christian sympathies because that is what she grew up with and is comfortable with).
She presented the idea that woman's first sin was self-sacrifice. I think self-sacrifice is a good thing - it perfects us. The world would be a much better place if everyone held everyone else in higher esteem than themselves.
Why would someone (ie Joseph Smith) start a religion based on a book that they themselves wrote and know to be a lie? Such a person would either be really evil or very self-deceived.
Assuming "self-deceived" to be the case...it is difficult for me to understand people who manufacture their own religious beliefs and derive meaning from them. It seems that people should desire to know absolute truth.
I wonder what the writer(s) of the Urantia Book thought about it. Did he/they really believe it was the truth? Or was he/they just having fun/desiring power (definitely, it would have been fun to write - it is pretty imaginative from what I've seen - but I can't see deceiving others with it)?
It's been almost three weeks since I went to that debate between a Christian man and a feminist woman (Susan Shaw). The Christian was pretty fundamental in what he said - largely because of that I remember more of Susan's discussion than his.
Ms. Shaw was raised in a Southern Baptist home and went to a theological seminary. She began to view suffering as requiring a different view of God - if God was omnipotent, she would have expected him to not allow suffering. She has formulated a set of beliefs based on what makes sense to her. Where is the desire to know absolute truth?
Progress theology made more sense to her than a traditional Christian view of God. Progress theology states: that God is being but not a being; that God does not have the power to inhibit natural processes; that "evil" is when a person keeps someone from fulfilling their full potential. When asked how that definition of evil related to abortion (which obviously keeps someone from fulfilling their full potential), Susan skirted the issue and stated that she was not "pro-abortion" but rather "pro-choice" because she did not believe it was her right to state what another woman could do with her body.
She had a definite problem with a paternalistic view of the world as it focuses (by her definition) on suffering, war, etc. She rejects the story of Christ's resurrection and possibly crucifixion because they are related to death - and yet she still calls herself a Christian (she has retained some Christian sympathies because that is what she grew up with and is comfortable with).
She presented the idea that woman's first sin was self-sacrifice. I think self-sacrifice is a good thing - it perfects us. The world would be a much better place if everyone held everyone else in higher esteem than themselves.
posted by Claire at 16:57
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home