NOM

Our two party political system is a fascinating game between Republicans and Democrats to maintain and wield power. The LDS has a radically different system that also appears to help the majority keep power. Some general authorities cite the Church's government as a superior system, yet in many was it seems to be a throwback to monarchy. Which government is better, and why?

The government which is less theocratic is the better government.

LSOF wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 10:56 am The government which is less theocratic is the better government.

Whether we like it or not, we all belong to two types of government.

Church and state.

Everyone has spiritual needs. Everyone had spiritual identity.

The US government is intentionally sparse in the realm of theology.

And Churches are intentionally sparse on athoritarian power. Churches are most likely a socialist type government.

But there is a reason they are different.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:30 pm Whether we like it or not, we all belong to two types of government.

Church and state.

Everyone has spiritual needs. Everyone had spiritual identity.

The US government is intentionally sparse in the realm of theology.

And Churches are intentionally sparse on athoritarian power. Churches are most likely a socialist type government.

But there is a reason they are different.

You're wrong about me. I belong to no church and have no need of spirituality.

It seems like Christians should be more a little more progressive in supporting a less capitalistic form of society:

Acts 4:32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

LSOF wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:43 pm

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:30 pm Whether we like it or not, we all belong to two types of government.

Church and state.

Everyone has spiritual needs. Everyone had spiritual identity.

The US government is intentionally sparse in the realm of theology.

And Churches are intentionally sparse on athoritarian power. Churches are most likely a socialist type government.

But there is a reason they are different.

You're wrong about me. I belong to no church and have no need of spirituality.

Some people take for granted what they have. The language you use, the concepts of humanity that you use, all are given to you. When you come out of the womb, you are not much different than other naked monkeys. If you were placed among wolves, they might raise you as one of their own, and you would think that you were one of them.

We have a rich heritage that is kept alive because of our faith. Your morals? They are beliefs. You relationships, mostly based on ideas worked out by religious people. Your hope? Your ambitions, they are not products that nature gave you, but things spiritual ideals formed and let you choose from.

Everyone has spiritual aspects to them. Thousands of years of fighting, we freed those elements from the state. They are symbols of freedom now. But if the state becomes the authority on morals, we will all go back to hell.

Honor those that worked to keep religion separate from the state. Do not pretend that you don't have spiritual needs. or the state will eventually define your spiritual identity. Choose a religion, or one will be chosen for you.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 7:02 pm Some people take for granted what they have. The language you use, the concepts of humanity that you use, all are given to you. When you come out of the womb, you are not much different than other naked monkeys. If you were placed among wolves, they might raise you as one of their own, and you would think that you were one of them.

We have a rich heritage that is kept alive because of our faith. Your morals? They are beliefs. You relationships, mostly based on ideas worked out by religious people. Your hope? Your ambitions, they are not products that nature gave you, but things spiritual ideals formed and let you choose from.

Everyone has spiritual aspects to them. Thousands of years of fighting, we freed those elements from the state. They are symbols of freedom now. But if the state becomes the authority on morals, we will all go back to hell.

Honor those that worked to keep religion separate from the state. Do not pretend that you don't have spiritual needs. or the state will eventually define your spiritual identity. Choose a religion, or one will be chosen for you.

Morals are not spirituality. Value judgements (upon which morality is founded) are not spirituality. Ghosts, dudes with jackals' heads, genocidal space wizards, and six-armed blue men with lotus feet are neither necessary nor sufficient for morality. I have no spiritual needs. Religious people are and were so many only because irreligious people have been made outlaws by numerous states in diverse lands all throughout history, and even now, religious parents teach their children to execrate irreligion. Even now, the likes of David Barton and Glenn Beck construct counterfactual histories alleging that America is founded on Christian principles (as if freedom of religion is compatible with "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Christ is the Lord").

I do not now, nor did ever, claim to hold no beliefs. I do not now, nor did ever, claim to have arrived independently at every belief I have. I live in no fear of the State imputing a religion to me. I'm not important enough to it.

The State is and always has been the ultimate authority on morals, simply because it has the biggest guns, the sharpest swords, the most arrows. As an anarchist, I like the State no more than you do and would love to see it abolished; I would love to see mankind live in a society of mutual aid and respect, rather than a society of fear and force. But as a rational, observant person, I see that the State is at present and for the foreseeable future a force to reckon with. The great thing about a (nominally) democratic republic like the United States is that the people governed have a little input into what rules will govern them. The great thing about the United States is that it is (nominally) secular, and that it (sometimes) doesn't pretend to have the authority of any gods behind it. I well regard them that made it so, though many of them were hypocrites.

A rather interesting form of science that I have embraced, is called biocentrism. It gets into the idea that we hallucinate our existence, that the universe is as we perceive it, not is necessarily is.

I have come to believe this for a couple of reasons. We can only perceive what is there, we cannot actually know what it is. With science we have been able to break things down and analyze them a greater detail but it is still just an observation of what is.

What we look at are ideas that we form in our head. Virtually you have created an opinion in your head about me. It is not the truth, it is what you believe.

You cannot know what I am. You cannot know what anyone is. So you must believe what you think they are. And education and learning is about changing those beliefs as we learn more.

Everything you have is belief.

State is a law that applies to everyone, hopefully, in your group. You and I obey the same speed limits. You and I will face the same punishments for specific crimes. But whether you think the moon is a ball of dirt and iron is just a belief. If I think it is green cheese, that too is a belief. But you cannot know. Even if you send spaceships up there to analyze the dirt and particles that confirm that it is just dirt and iron, you don't know what it has been to people throughout history and how it has affected people then and even now.

Religion is about managing our beliefs. Morals are spiritual. There is nothing scientific about courage or faithfulness. Those are things you must believe it. If you assign a machine to do a task, it is not faithful, it is merely doing what it was programmed to do.

But when a friend stands by you when you have shamed yourself, that is faithfulness, a belief in you that is not necessarily justified.

Again, everything you have is based on faith. Any science involved is merely a process of observation and reapplication of the things we observe. But what we observe is based on the things we believe.

I've seen many arguments between an atheist (of some kind) and a theist (of some kind), where the theist asserts that the atheist needs spirituality or faith, and the atheist says no way.

IMO the disconnect comes down to definitions.

I think the theist is usually using broad definitions, such as spirituality = connectedness with something larger, and faith = trust in something (e.g. a broader view, or that things will work out). The theist wants the other to feel connected, or is asserting kinship or shared understanding. Personally, I have to agree that under those broad definitions, I'm spiritual, and I act in faith, because I literally couldn't function otherwise. And using those definitions, obviously morality springs from spirituality.

I think the atheist is usually using narrow definitions, which have the baggage of religious history, often in a personal sense, sometimes recalling direct harm. Suggesting a need for spirituality and faith using those definitions is like saying you need to put your other arm in the wood chipper now, and goes exactly as well. Personally, under those definitions, my response to the need for spirituality and faith is hell no. And morality springing forth from spirituality? You're kidding. Let me tell you all about the moral cowards who held my mind hostage for 39 years...

I see the same argument template in use here. Did I guess it right?

Reuben wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:50 pm
I see the same argument template in use here. Did I guess it right?

I'm not sure.
Here on NOM I have made up a phrase.

GNOSTIC: THE ART OF KNOWING
AGNOSTIC: THE ART OF NOT KNOWING
ATHEIST: THE ART OF KNOWING NOTHING

This actually became part of my philosophy. I consider the universe to be consciousness based. And there are a few ways to perceive the universe. And depending on how you see it has a different effect on how you approach it. Knowing what you see makes people confident. Not knowing what you see makes people humble. But knowing that there is nothing makes you crazy.

But believe it or not, I found myself more immersed in the last one, knowing that there was nothing. The Big Bang basically is a theory that we all come from nothing.

A few theories of the Big bang include things like two other universes bumping up against each other, overlapping, and creating a new one. But if this is the method, how did the first two come to exist?

Mathematically, the universe is a sum zero or zero plane energy. Meaning, It is based on the laws of action and equal opposite reaction. Matter and antimatter were somehow split apart to create the universes that is the sum total of who we are. But if you add them back together, they are nothing.

The true God, had to exist within that nothing. The true God had to exist in the void and was conscious. But I don't know what that consciousness looks like. When two objects are drawn together in space by the force of gravity, they are, in terms of physics, aware of each other. They are conscious of each other. Maybe not like you and I, who have personalities and ambitions and goals, but they are aware.

I think modern atheism likes to use the idea of facts to describe the world. "He went home," and that is a fact. But a spiritual person would look at that a little bit differently. What is home and how did it come to be? The feeling of belonging that usually comes with home. Who made it? What principles are practiced to make home? What values are maintained to keep it sacred? While the word home only has four letters, it can have thousands of years of history and spiritual practice.

Maybe your house has a fireplace. Not much need for that anymore, but many people consider it an ancient symbol of home that they will pay for anyway. Maybe there are patterns in the floor that you simply take for granted, but might come from a tradition that you would admire and felt comfortable in.

Oddly enough, I claim the title of atheist. I know there is nothing. But I also know that that nothing made everything. If an atheist took the time to consider how they stand in a place surrounded by formed ideas, like identity, fashion, civilization, and home they too would find God.

God is the creator. Not only does God create life, God is alive. Not only does God create consciousness, God is conscious.

But here is the fascinating paradox the atheism. Even though there is nothing, God tells us to believe. Because it is in our belief that we create. Though technically God is nothing, we create God with our belief. And God, to us, is our connection to the all-knowing and the all powerful.

Humans are today, a mixture of someone else's creation and our own creation. Free agency is a goal, but not a reality.

I think you are correct though. Trying to encapsulate a concept into a single word, while useful, is also blasphemy. I remember scene in Lord of the Rings, where Treebeard and the Ents would talk to each other. It might take 3 days to say hello. That is a level of truth in that I think we take for granted. We think we can sum up all of that emotion and reality in a simple "hey." The truth of every word is infinitely profound. Simple definitions cannot define reality.