How many Joseph Smiths?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

On the other hand?

If there are consequences for believing in this deity versus not-believing?  Any kind of consequences, no matter how small?

Then... they most certainly do have an obligation to make clear what they want from us.

Ayuh.  I don't hold much truck with the idea that we are obligated to believe, personally.

Oh, me neither.   And I rather liked your river analogy-- does the river know or care that we may slake our thirst from it's waters?



Or appreciate the beauty of the canyon it has so patently carved over millennia?  Unlikely.

But our appreciation for the river's gifts does not make the river sentient or spiritual or magical...

... apart from any of these that may be created from within our own minds ... of course.



Sometimes metaphysical is that which we clever self-aware beings have fabricated out of the ordinary, the mundane, into a tapestry of mystery and imagination:  only existing in the imaginary realm of our own inner visions--

-- which some even more cleverer (_{is that even a word?} ) are able to impart to others with mere words in a row...

Whereas I do not, on one had, believe there is some sort of mystical "out there" entities (such as fairies, gods, intentional-bumps-in-the-night-beings), on the other had I fully recognize that within the realm of the imagination?  There certainly do exist dragons, and fairy queens, and invisible pink unicorns, and wish-granting, and the occasional rescue of the orphaned child into a realm where she or he is a long-lost king or queen (_{depending on their individual proclivities-- why couldn't a girl become king in imagination-land?  Especially since boys regularly become queens even in real life...} ).

These realms can be easily as profound, nay, more profound than that humble river carving out the canyon-- for one day, the river may be damed up, it may be diverted, it may become polluted.

But the art that is fiction?  That flows from clever monkeys' imaginations?   That may well live forever*-- for we clever monkeys have even beamed some of this into the outer darkness.  Unwittingly, of course.

Okay, that's my 3 and a half cents worth...

__________

_{* well... not exactly forever, as eventually the universe will wind down one way or another.  Or else some greater force--perhaps from some supra-universe? -- may interefere and cause it to collapse back on itself.  Just like some clever monkeys who work in really clever monkey-laboratories, have surmised is what caused the current rapid expansive state to begin.  But 'forever' in the sense of the life-scale within the universe itself, in that life began in our neck of the woods roughly 4 billion years ago-- and to a clever monkey who's average lifespan is measured in microscopic fractions of that, 'forever' could be considered anything of a similar timespan.}

[Aggie]

Great post!



I've posted a reply over in Snark and Rant....  because it's a bit of a rant, and a bit long for this thread. 

[Roland Deschain]

Great thread with a nice evolution. I'll stick my nose in here and give my thoughts:-

I do not believe in the existence of any god(s). The nearest I would ever get to our race being created is in an alien race, who evolved through natural selection, influencing our evolution some time in the past, kind of like 2001: A Space Odyssey. The nearest i'll ever come to believing that a being created our universe is that this being also evolved through natural selection, developed/evolved to the stage where their power was large enough to create universes, created one, then left it alone. We may one day have the power to do either ourselves, and hence become "like gods". I find the idea of a personal god to be somewhat elitist.

The make-up of the human mind is such that we feel the need to anthropomorphise everything, from plants to animals to the sun, and this is evident wherever you go, and whatever your culture. The god of the Bible is very much a human one, showing fear, jealousy, love, hate, etc, as is plain to see if you read it in any depth. People have always wanted to know "why", and without the scientific means to answer this question, we turn to an otherworldly being to explain this.

As to the historicity of Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua/Joseph/whatever name he may or may not have had, I believe that these teachings came from somewhere. Obviously they had to come from someone originally, and I will echo what many in this thread have said, and conclude that the gospels most likely came from many sources, and people embellished them over time. Look at how people innocently embellish things now, and for the reason that they are trying to help out, and think how much more that may have gone on in the past.

Then we come to the arbitrary books in the Bible, and how they were cherry-picked at the council of Nicea. The creation of the Roman Catholic Church was a political and philosophical manoeuvre, and not strictly a religious one. The story had to be reasonably familiar to the Roman people, who were used to many gods with many aspects, so a trinity was a nice compromise, not to mention omitting anything which questioned the divinity of Jesus. There were a large number of gospels floating around, many of which belonged to the Gnostics. Some of them were so esoteric as to be worthy of the base beliefs of the Mormons or the Scientologists (Jesus as an alien, or aliens bringing us here as slaves, etc), and some had Jesus performing miracles as a child and being very mischievous (like killing other kids). It's no wonder most didn't make it into canon, as they were frankly considered too bizarre for most people to accept, or gave over the "wrong" impression of Jesus. I come once again to people thinking that they're "doing the right thing" by embellishing stories to prove their authenticity, but who just end up causing issues hundreds or thousands of years down the line.

How much more different would Christianity have been if a slightly different set of books were included? And why weren't more books/letters from Peter included, considering he was the first bishop of Rome (Pope)? I think the Gospel of Peter was one of the ones which questioned the divinity of Jesus, so its authenticity was called into question (nothing new in that attitude).

Judaism has survived because it is very insular, and traditionally promotes a strong sense of "in-crowd" membership, where once you join, you are automatically "one of them". Islam has survived for similar reasons, but also through war and the occupation of foreign lands. Although proselytising isn't a requirement, it is a given when invading another country to occupy, dependent upon the local religions. Apostasy being a punishable offence is also a strong reason to stay within the religion once you are there. With Christianity, it has a little of both of the above. It was virtually forced upon the Roman people by decree of the Emperor, but done in such a way that it was like giving up all the other gods for just one (or three) instead of taking them away altogether, but we mustn't forget the way Christianity was integrated with the different forms of Paganism throughout the Roman Empire at the time, so that it once again wasn't too much of a change. Christianity was also forced upon people in bloody ways from time to time.

Saying this, any religion will change over time, and in 2,000 years, maybe one like Mormonism will be in the same situation that Christianity is today. Who knows? As to the question of records, have you seen the depth of truth distortion on the internet? What if opinion pieces are the only things that survive to that time, and these same opinion pieces are pro-Joseph Smith or anti-Joseph Smith? What a huge difference that will make, not to mention if a site such as The Onion or its ilk were to survive in its entirety with no contextual basis existing alongside it!