Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[Ghills]

All Christians

Just curious how you feel about the virgin birth of Jesus, the fact that no consent was involved, and there for it's pretty...rapey.

There was totally consent involved. Mary said 'Behold, the handmaiden of the Lord', at least in my Bible.

Admittedly, my sect (LDS/Mormons) also teach that agency and choices are one of the primary things that distinguish God from Satan -Satan is Satan because he wanted to turn everyone into his sockpuppets 'for their own good', essentially.  So I'm reading the text from that perspective. 

As for the virgin part - that's why it's a miracle.

God's existence basically negates 'free will' by principle. (The monotheistic 'ultimate creator' one at least.)

Nope. The standard Catholic or Protestant reading may - I've never really followed all of their opinions on what God is - but in LDS theology free will is the whole point of life.

While God is our Heavenly Father, who may know everything, we don't. And we need to learn ourselves, to learn what we truly value and what choices we make under pressure. So He made this world for us to live in and make choices in - choices that He will guide us in if we seek His guidance, but not choices that He is going to force, because Him forcing choices would utterly thwart the point of the life.  At the end of this life, the sum of our actions speak to our character and to where we want to spend eternity.  Without going through life and making those choices, we wouldn't grow and so we wouldn't be ready for the next step, much like kids can't do algebra without learning arithmetic.

http://www.mormon.org/values/choice has a more detailed explanation.

[Cheeetar]

A question for any LDS members: To what extent is polygamy still practiced or permissible in the church?

[Ghills]

As for the virgin part - that's why it's a miracle.

Convenient then that those who were devout to Jesus, and writing this book, wrote of this miraculous birth...

If it were modern day, that would be called propaganda.

He personally doesn't shake it off, though, at least not that I see.

Nope, but those writing the texts would only really know Jesus was born out of wed lock...what's the best way to put a spin on that?

Oh, they called it propaganda at the time too.    Either someone believes it or they don't. 

[Ghills]

A question for any LDS members: To what extent is polygamy still practiced or permissible in the church?

It's not.  Practicing polygamy is grounds for excommunication (getting kicked out of the church - people can still associate outside of the church however they want, but all callings and position in the church are gone). It's considered breaking the marriage covenant. There are a few breakaway wackos who cling to it, just like there are fringe breakaways of every religion.

Official church position: http://www.mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy

More factoids and/or common opinions about polygamy:
1) It's supposed to be a direct command of the Lord thing, not a 'She's pretty! I want her' thing.  The 'wife assignment' creepiness the FLDS got up to is utterly, completely against the commandment. It was supposed to be adding another fully equal partner into an eternal companionship.   
2) It was only ever a tiny fraction of the population practicing it.
3) Some plural marriages were for eternity only i.e. didn't take effect until both parties died, so that women married to non-members could be assured of eternal blessings. I find this highly weird, but it's an interesting factoid.
4) The statistics we have indicate it was in some ways better for the women - fewer women were recorded as dying during childbirth, according to the last report I read.  Also, it freed some women up to do things outside the home. Utah had some of the first female doctors in the West.  I mean, it seems indescribably awkward to me, but so does marrying a first cousin and that's still legal in some places afaik. Or marrying as a teenager.  >.<
5) Historical speculation: It was mostly practiced during a time when the church was being persecuted out of the US and there was a male/female population imbalance. Some people think that had something to do with the commandment, but we really don't know. This is just in-church gossip, but it's common enough to mention.

[smeeprocket]

on topic of the virgin birth

What if Mary had said no? It seems that, with the power dynamic in play, and the fact that God isn't exactly very nice to people who defy him (no insult intended, the Bible is very clear that he is jealous and vengeful,) she couldn't say no.

If an all powerful deity says he's going to knock me up, I'm probably not going to find out what happens if I protest. Especially since the view of women in the Old Testament was property level.

Also, while I'm the first person to hammer people about religion, some of these posts to the people we are asking questions of has gotten kind of hostile. I want answers, and backing people into a corner isn't going to get clear responses.

Also, anyone who is an LDS

How do you reconcile the fact that a ton of Joseph Smith's prophecies have not come to pass, and the only person who ever saw the golden tablets was him?

[TD1]

has gotten kind of hostile.

Heh? Where?

[Ghills]

on topic of the virgin birth

What if Mary had said no? It seems that, with the power dynamic in play, and the fact that God isn't exactly very nice to people who defy him (no insult intended, the Bible is very clear that he is jealous and vengeful,) she couldn't say no.

If an all powerful deity says he's going to knock me up, I'm probably not going to find out what happens if I protest. Especially since the view of women in the Old Testament was property level.

Also, while I'm the first person to hammer people about religion, some of these posts to the people we are asking questions of has gotten kind of hostile. I want answers, and backing people into a corner isn't going to get clear responses.

Also, anyone who is an LDS

How do you reconcile the fact that a ton of Joseph Smith's prophecies have not come to pass, and the only person who ever saw the golden tablets was him?

LDS theology says that God would respect her choice, because that's the person God is - godhood is a state of being, sort of (yeah, LDS theology can be radically different from some other Christian sects - we haven't even mentioned the most radical parts yet ). 

The view of women in the Old Testament has been filtered through Greek and Roman culture, which were some of the most virulently anti-women old cultures I know of, and then through European culture which was virulently anti-human-rights for anyone not the king.  There are some obvious places where political stuff impacted the scriptures, which is why LDS tenets include "We believe the Bible to be the work of God in so far as it is translated correctly" and why Joseph Smith started going over the Bible.

Also, LDS theology is wildly different from most other Christian sects on the subject of women's rights and what the Priesthood is. So that plays into how the scene is interpreted too - this is viewed as Mary being called to high position much like an apostle is called, with the same ability to turn it down (everyone is free to turn down callings in the church - a person is asked privately before any announcement is made and is free to turn callings down. I've done it and know several people who have also).  So there's a very different view of Mary and Eve in LDS theology and discussion than most other Christian sects I think.

re: Prophecies
There's several parts to answering this question.  I'll try to address both as best I can.

1) Well, prophecies don't usually come with a time frame. That's actually a big theme in discussion of prophecies.  We hold that several have been fulfilled and take it on faith that the rest will be too, just like the prophecies in Revelation and Isaiah.   

1a) More than Joseph Smith saw the golden plates. 11 men made a signed statement to that effect. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/three?lang=eng and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/eight?lang=eng   Also, at least 1 other person was given the ability to translate, but he was uncommited about it and so it didn't go well: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.7-8?lang=eng

2) Everyone in the church is entitled to individual revelation. It's expected that members talk to God multiple times a day and work to understand His answers.  So yeah, some prophecies might not have happened yet, and we might not see the golden plates ourselves.  But we can, and we are taught to, ask Heavenly Father and other people if we have any questions and search out answers (the agency thing again - people are expected to know the Gospel and make an informed choice).  We see the teachings of the Gospel work in our lives - we try them out, practice them and get results, and we see other people doing the same thing.   

It could be revealed that Joseph Smith was a penguin in a man suit (as a random example), and it wouldn't make a difference to my testimony that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the best way for people to be happy and fulfilled in this life and forever. It wouldn't change the fact that I've talked to my Heavenly Father and gotten an answer. Sometimes very frustrating answers that I didn't want to hear, but answers nonetheless.    So part of the answer to your question is 'We have faith, because what we've done so far has worked enough that we trust the rest will work too.'

[Cheeetar]

Thank you for the very informative answers, Ghills!

[UXLZ]

All Christians

Just curious how you feel about the virgin birth of Jesus, the fact that no consent was involved, and there for it's pretty...rapey.

There was totally consent involved. Mary said 'Behold, the handmaiden of the Lord', at least in my Bible.

Admittedly, my sect (LDS/Mormons) also teach that agency and choices are one of the primary things that distinguish God from Satan -Satan is Satan because he wanted to turn everyone into his sockpuppets 'for their own good', essentially.  So I'm reading the text from that perspective. 

As for the virgin part - that's why it's a miracle.

God's existence basically negates 'free will' by principle. (The monotheistic 'ultimate creator' one at least.)

Nope. The standard Catholic or Protestant reading may - I've never really followed all of their opinions on what God is - but in LDS theology free will is the whole point of life.

While God is our Heavenly Father, who may know everything, we don't. And we need to learn ourselves, to learn what we truly value and what choices we make under pressure. So He made this world for us to live in and make choices in - choices that He will guide us in if we seek His guidance, but not choices that He is going to force, because Him forcing choices would utterly thwart the point of the life.  At the end of this life, the sum of our actions speak to our character and to where we want to spend eternity.  Without going through life and making those choices, we wouldn't grow and so we wouldn't be ready for the next step, much like kids can't do algebra without learning arithmetic.

http://www.mormon.org/values/choice has a more detailed explanation.

Yes, but God is omnipotent and Utterly Perfect and all that jazz. It knows exactly how everything will happen, from the very start. In the event of such a being's existence we have no more free will than the characters in a linear video game. The illusion, yes, but not the substance. However, this is only true in the event that God truly is Utterly Perfect and omniscient. If there is a blind spot, some blind spot, no matter how minute, then free will can be said to exist. Otherwise... As I said, no more than an illusion.

[TheDarkStar]

You could look at omnipotence as "He can see everything that can happen" and preserve free will.

[LordBucket]

All That Is isn't actually everything. It doesn't include All That Is Not, or All That Could Be, or All That Will Not Be, or All That May Be

Consider an uncollapsed quantum wave function.

All That Is isn't actually complete.

Again, uncollapsed quantum wave function. The only difference between this universe and all possible universes is that you're observing this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

If that is an accurate description of "objective" reality, then All That Is is functionally equivalent to All That Could Possibly Be.

it's different to the normal kind of "Omnipotence" ascribed to a 'God' (that is, being capable of literally everything.

Yes. But most people seem to think of god as a bearded man in the sky who wants worship and cares who you have sex with. The concepts we're discussing are simply beyond what most people are capable of conceiving. You don't start kindergarteners with calculus. You teach them how to add first.

Going with the interpretation that God Is Everything, It isn't an entity because It cannot interact.

You are I are interacting right now.

This, incidentally, may be the answer to the great question: "Why?"

Where do you believe 'God' came from?

I'm not in a very good position to to say, and I'm more comfortable with "I don't know" than speculating turtles.

But one possibility I occasionally consider:

x^3 + y^3 + z^3 - 3xyz - (x+y+z) * (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - yz - zx - xy)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Equals zero.

But it's a very interesting expression of zero.

Although I suspect that's more probably an explanation for the existence of the universe. As for "God," "the system" ...the very possibility of a thing like possibility existing...I just don't know. I can't even say with certainty that physical reality actually exists as anything besides a hallucinated experience. I'm not in a position to answer your question.

@bucket, does Lytherus or IF mean anything to you?

Not particularly. Lytherus appears to be a general gaming/fiction website, and my first thought upon seeing IF is Ironforge.

[Rolan7]

Thank you for the very informative answers, Ghills!

Yes, this.  I learned a lot in a little time, thank you for sharing!

God's existence basically negates 'free will' by principle. (The monotheistic 'ultimate creator' one at least.)

Nope. The standard Catholic or Protestant reading may - I've never really followed all of their opinions on what God is - but in LDS theology free will is the whole point of life.

While God is our Heavenly Father, who may know everything, we don't. And we need to learn ourselves, to learn what we truly value and what choices we make under pressure. So He made this world for us to live in and make choices in - choices that He will guide us in if we seek His guidance, but not choices that He is going to force, because Him forcing choices would utterly thwart the point of the life.  At the end of this life, the sum of our actions speak to our character and to where we want to spend eternity.  Without going through life and making those choices, we wouldn't grow and so we wouldn't be ready for the next step, much like kids can't do algebra without learning arithmetic.

http://www.mormon.org/values/choice has a more detailed explanation.

Yes, but God is omnipotent and Utterly Perfect and all that jazz. It knows exactly how everything will happen, from the very start. In the event of such a being's existence we have no more free will than the characters in a linear video game. The illusion, yes, but not the substance. However, this is only true in the event that God truly is Utterly Perfect and omniscient. If there is a blind spot, some blind spot, no matter how minute, then free will can be said to exist. Otherwise... As I said, no more than an illusion.

Yeah...  If God has unlimited knowledge of what will happen, and unlimited ability to change it, then it doesn't matter that we don't know the future.  It's still set, determined solely by God's actions and inactions (even if he limits himself with self-imposed rules).  In that case we have no more free will than characters in a novel, with God as the author.

But I find the original question more interesting if there is free will.  (A lot of the Bible makes more sense if God is limited.  The Israelites lost battles and did horrible things in God's name...  Plus it helps explain why supposed miracles are unverifiably minor in the present day.)

So assuming free will, let's examine the angel's "offer" to Mary with some context.

1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
1:14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
1:16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

"Your wife will bear John the Baptist"
"Really?  But we're both very old"
"Yeah really, I'm an angel.  I'm suspending your ability to speak for 9 months because you doubted me."

Then, 6 months later...

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

"You are the *luckiest* woman" 
"Er, yeah?" 
"Definitely!  You're going to bear a son to rule the Israelites"
"But, I'm not actually married yet, much less..."
"The Holy Spirit will envelop you and you'll become pregnant.  By the way, you know your pregnant cousin Elisabeth whose husband has been struck dumb for six months?  We did that.  Both things, actually." 
"Okay, okay, I guess this is happening."

Also note, she apparently tried to go through with the wedding without telling Joseph about any of this.  Was she ashamed?

1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

This isn't directed at Ghills specifically, since it sounds like the LDS doesn't accept the entire Bible as true, more to emphasize Mary's position...  This was an emissary of the Old Testament God, delivering a declaration (not an offer).  This same emissary had recently made her cousin pregnant and struck her cousin's husband dumb for months.  The conception was going to happen with or without her consent, and her cousin-in-law had clearly paid a price (for merely *doubting*).

So, Christians: Was Mary's consent valid?

[Orange Wizard]

AFAIK Mary gave no consent. It would be kind of weird, though, for an angel to come down and say, "Hey, Mary, you wanna get pregnant with the Son of God?"

Like, seriously weird.

It's worth noting that not sex was involved. Thus "virgin birth".

God also isn't big on asking how people feel about doing something before foisting it on them. Moses didn't have a choice about becoming the leader of the Jewish people, nobody asked Jonah if he wanted to go to Nineveh, and Job was stripped of everything short of his life because God said it was okay.

[UXLZ]

Quote number one!

Consider an uncollapsed quantum wave function.

All That Is isn't actually complete.

Again, uncollapsed quantum wave function. The only difference between this universe and all possible universes is that you're observing this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

If that is an accurate description of "objective" reality, then All That Is is functionally equivalent to All That Could Possibly Be.

Sorry, I was kind of just using All That Is as an entirely literal interpretation (that is, only things that exist at the specific moment of 'now', not including things in the past or future.)
Yet that still doesn't include All That Could Not Possibly Be, does it?
Hence, there is still something that God does not contain.
Hence, imperfect.
Quote number two~

it's different to the normal kind of "Omnipotence" ascribed to a 'God' (that is, being capable of literally everything.

Yes. But most people seem to think of god as a bearded man in the sky who wants worship and cares who you have sex with. The concepts we're discussing are simply beyond what most people are capable of conceiving. You don't start kindergarteners with calculus. You teach them how to add first.

You seem to have overestimated me. I'm a mere high schooler, nothing more, nothing less.
Regardless, as you may have understood from the quote of myself in my reply to you, that isn't my interpretation of God at all. I believe that a god like that could exist, with the caveat being, as always, It cannot be Utterly Perfect. This is probably the most concise summary: Its motives cannot be discerned, its thoughts cannot be inferred, its existence cannot be comprehended.
Quote number three!
 

Going with the interpretation that God Is Everything, It isn't an entity because It cannot interact.

You are I are interacting right now.

This, incidentally, may be the answer to the great question: "Why?"

Yes. However, you may have possibly misunderstood what I meant by that: You are something outside of my system. If you were part of my system, then interacting with you would not make me an entity. However, as I said, you are not, and thus I am indeed an entity. God, if we are using the interpretation you proposed (which is an interesting theory that I've thought about before but never really discussed) then It is Everything. There is nothing outside of It. It cannot interact (with something outside of Itself) so It is simply a system, and not an entity.

Does this last past refer to the above or what came next? (Answer to the question.) My apologies, but I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest.
Quote number four!

Where do you believe 'God' came from?

I'm not in a very good position to to say, and I'm more comfortable with "I don't know" than speculating turtles.

But one possibility I occasionally consider:

x^3 + y^3 + z^3 - 3xyz - (x+y+z) * (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - yz - zx - xy)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Equals zero.

But it's a very interesting expression of zero.

Although I suspect that's more probably an explanation for the existence of the universe. As for "God," "the system" ...the very possibility of a thing like possibility existing...I just don't know. I can't even say with certainty that physical reality actually exists as anything besides a hallucinated experience. I'm not in a position to answer your question.

Mmm... I may be misunderstanding once again, but are you suggesting that, as that maths equation did, 'God'/the universe is simply something born of nothing? Ultimately it equals zero but there is an expression for it that has substance. I'm not sure if the fact that there are three different pro numerals has something to do with the fact (well, nothing is really 'fact', but the perceived fact) that there are three physical dimensions.
If I haven't misinterpreted here, then I think that agrees with something I hold to be mostly true:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That everything in the universe, is ultimately, equal to nothing. The only thing that can be said to exist with no end is time itself, (possibly symbolised by the lack of a fourth pro numeral. The equation equals zero, and if time were there it would not.)
Anyway, basic premise:
Time is the only thing that can be said to exist without end.
All things that exist or may exist, no matter for how long, are in essence when contrasted to the infinity of time... Never even there at all. One year, ten years, ten thousand years, ten million years, three hundred trillion years, a google years, a billion googleplex millennia. If time is infinite, then these do not, by comparison, even exist at all.
Everything fades to nothingness.
Of course, I realise that this above thought is heavily flawed. I cannot be sure that time is infinite, and the logic leaps are quite drastic. It's still entertaining to think about the notion, however.

I think I'm reading too much into this, though.

Not particularly. Lytherus appears to be a general gaming/fiction website, and my first thought upon seeing IF is Ironforge.

Never mind then. Bucket was a member of a place lost to time, which I miss quite dearly. You have no resemblance to him, but I thought it worth to check. If those things mean nothing to you, then that is all I needed to know.

One last thing: what once was my favorite phrase, 'Who knows? Not I' has now slipped away. I wonder why. I no nothing more than I once did then. Everything has simply... Disappeared.

Why does time destroy all things? No... Not destroy... Destroy is too active, too glamorous. It simply... Erodes.
As The Hobbit once so aptly put: 'This thing all things devours...'

[Romegypt]

(LDS here, will accept questions)

As Ghills or whomever stated earlier, We believe the bible to be the word of god, so far as it is translated correctly. We do use the King James version, as that one has had the least amount of cross-translation (For example, from king James to a new age.) The King James version is the closest to the original as far as we can tell. I don't know for certain if it is, so I won't say it is, but we do accept the entire bible.

As for zachy being struck dumb, that was actually because he disobeyed one of Gods commandments. While we are  free to chose for ourselves, we do not typically choose the CONSEQUENCES of those choices.  For example, I have the freedom to go shoot a police officer (Not related to the recent shootings, just something I thought of first for some reason), but I don't get to choose whether or not I will be jailed, or killed, or whatever else may happen to me. This particular commandment, IIRC, was that he tried to name the baby after himself, or some such thing, when it's name was supposed to be Lazarus (I could be wrong about what the name actually was supposed to be.) You sort of have to cycle through all the books (Mark, Matthew,Luke AND john,) to find this out if I am correct, Although I may be remembering a different story. Once he renamed the baby, he was given his speech again.


Mary's acceptance was certainly valid. She said she would bear the child, she was not coerced into it, although it may seem like it.