Problems With Christianity

[_Roger Morrison]

Are you suggesting this was needed more for "Christ's sake..." than for humanity's sake???
Sounds pretty garbled? But it is the end of a loooong day...
Roger...
*
*

I don't believe that but wondered if you were asking that in your question. As a TBM I considered it possible that Christ needed to suffer all the pain of the world in his final step to exaltation, in order to acquire every kind of Godly trait needed to forgive and love us completely/purely, as his Father had done. Because he suffered not only for our sins, but all the illnesses, and pains of mortality, he has empathy for all of our suffering.

Some times questions are difficult to understand..LOL! As are answers...ROTFL!!!

Jumping into the soup--WITH my SCO (seriously-considered-opinion;-) Christ suffered NEEDLESSLY for anyone's, "... sins...illnesses...&...pains..." . Including his own... He was executed by crucifixion--the gallows of the day--for his anti-establishment utterances, to the displeasure of the Sanhedrin...

You, as a TBM as I at one time was, are/have-been misinformed, generally by well meaning folks, indoctrinated, as has been the whole of Christianism, by uninformed, indifferent-to-truth servants of those who deny that the Law-of- Charity is efficatious in the lives of so-called "Fallen Man"...

Another outrageous lie that has held Ecclisiatically influenced humanity down, while secular society, working WITH (not against) science has raised our species to heights unimagined by those waiting for some imagined salvation from the evil they themselves officiate, to live in heavenly Fantasia with Egyptian nobility who mumified themselves for the next life...

It is utterly futile to aquire, ""Godly" traits." The best anyone can do is to acquire awareness, consciousness and understanding of the world in which THEY live... Then, empathy for those within THEIR circle; to a conscienced acceptance of those on the out-reaches of OUR Global Community... Sort-of like Jesus the Humanitarian Philosopher Taught...

As long as so-called-Christianity remains focused on The Pie In The Sky for themselves, The Law of Chastity will continue to Trump The Law of Charity. Thus allowing the Christian-Capitalist-Establishment to indulge themselves as they subscribe to the Divine Rights Of The Righteous...

Seven, I don't think I can be anymore forthright... Even if I'm wrong...
Roger *
*

[_Jason Bourne]

Then you will have to exclude Christians from the discussion.

No not really

And what I meant was the standard answers from the scriptures, arguing the need to a savior from the scriptures really does not answer the rationality behind the question as to why the Omnipotent God of the universe demands punishment, and yes Huck, in blood, for payment for sin. The question is further aggravated by the fact that He knowingly set it up this way.

I know, your question is so much deeper than that but there isn't an answer for it that doesn't involve removing Jesus Christ the Savior from your beliefs.

From a spiritual stand point I have faith in Jesus and His atonement for me.

But this is apples to oranges. God condemns us to Hell in Christianity for one sin, big or small. You do just ONE you are guilty of all and are going to Hell unless you repent and accept the apparent required blood sacrifice. Thus the absurd results that the repentant muderer can go to heaven but the righteous Gandhi cannot because he did not accept Jesus blood. He is going to Hell.

Why?

Mormons go nuts when other faiths tell them what they believe because of absurd teachings or doctrines once taught by Prophets or canonized scriptures but you don't have a problem attributing this uncharitable view of our fellowman to all Christianity.

I am not an unquestioning TBM. I criticize absurd Mormon beliefs as well. So you don't need to waste incredulity me. And really don't you find that outcome absurd?

Not all Christians believe that accepting Christ's blood is limited to mortality even if their doctrine conflicts with that.

Can you show me Christian sects that believe there is a chance beyond mortality to accept Jesus?

That's not how the atonement works and it's unfair to characterize them all with this absurdity.

I know of no Christian doctrine that does not end in this way. Please enlighten me. Not just with your opinions however. I want real doctrine.

You'll find your hell fire and damnation very outspoken ones out there, the type who believe deathbed repentance saves a person, but if you asked most Christians, I doubt they sincerely believe Ghandi is burning in hell.

Is it based on opinion or doctrine?

Would it be fair to say all LDS believe that polygamy is still required for exaltation because it's still doctrine of the church, spiritually done in the temple today, and remains in the canon?

There are those that argue such. But at least the LDS Church has an official pronouncement suspending the practice of polygamy. Very different than simple opinions.


Seven
I am not trying to attack Christianity. LDSism is part of Christianity. I have faith in all this, and in all you are saying. But I am just trying to discuss the rationality of it all.

[_Seven]

"Jason Bourne"
And what I meant was the standard answers from the scriptures...

Hi Jason, :)
I knew exactly what you meant but was just kidding around with you because of how funny this sounded.

"Jason Bourne"

I am not sure why you keep giving me the gospel line. This is really not a discussion for gospel answers.

But this is apples to oranges. God condemns us to Hell in Christianity for one sin, big or small. You do just ONE you are guilty of all and are going to Hell unless you repent and accept the apparent required blood sacrifice. Thus the absurd results that the repentant muderer can go to heaven but the righteous Gandhi cannot because he did not accept Jesus blood. He is going to Hell.

"Seven"

"Jason"
Why?

I already told you why. I assume you are talking about Ghandi dying in ignorance of His Savior in mortality and is now in hell because he missed his chance but a murderer goes to heaven because he believed in Christ. It's unfair to attribute that belief to all Christianity. Righteous Ghandi would not deny Jesus' blood if he KNEW Christ was his Savior. Why would he? Now if Ghandi has that knowledge (meaning undeniable witness) and is still refusing to accept Christ's payment for his sins, then yes I would agree that Christians believe that would result in "hell."
Like I said, there are very foundational doctrines in Mormonism that most members don't believe in but outsiders tell them they do. You really can't state that Christians believe Ghandi is burning in hell because of a doctrine. I would imagine most Christians struggle a lot with those scriptures on hell and may even quietly disagree with it, just as I struggled as a TBM to understand and disagreed with the eternal placement of people into Kingdoms based on sins/works in Mormon doctrine. It invalidated Christ's sacrifice. I'd bet there are many Christians who have hope for Ghandi or other non believers to accept Christ somehow in the hereafter.

"Jason"
I am not an unquestioning TBM. I criticize absurd Mormon beliefs as well. So you don't need to waste incredulity me. And really don't you find that outcome absurd?

Of course I find it absurd that a person only has only this very short earth life to believe in Jesus or they are toast while a murderer who believed goes to heaven. I find it absurd that in a fallen world in which we are blinded and in darkness from God that anyone would be expected to believe in Him when there is no evidence. But when the veil is lifted, yes, we have to believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice to be with Him. (and meet the conditions of it)
You being an open minded Mormon and criticizing Mormon beliefs has nothing to do with my point. You can't tell me that Christians sincerely believe that Ghandi is burning in hell, even if their church doctrine teaches that, just like I can't say that you believe plural marriage is required for Godhood. The only solid doctrine you can find among Christians is that we all must accept Jesus Christ's gift of payment for our sins to be saved. Whether or not Ghandi or other non believers will be given that chance in the afterlife is unknown to them, and many Christians struggle with and challenge those scriptures on hell because that doctrine doesn't make sense to them. But I would say it is absolutely true that Christians believe Ghandi must accept/believe in Christ's atonement to be saved and I agree with it.

"Seven"
Not all Christians believe that accepting Christ's blood is limited to mortality even if their doctrine conflicts with that.

"Jason"
Can you show me Christian sects that believe there is a chance beyond mortality to accept Jesus?

Yes. Although they are in the minority of Christian sects, it is a growing movement and it's my opinion that there are many Christians who believe in it already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

The belief in the eventual salvation of all humankind has been a topic of debate throughout the history of the Christian faith. In the early Church, universalism was a flourishing theological doctrine[1]. Over time, as Christian theology experienced growth and expansion, it lost much of its popular acceptance

"Seven" That's not how the atonement works and it's unfair to characterize them all with this absurdity.

"Jason"
I know of no Christian doctrine that does not end in this way. Please enlighten me. Not just with your opinions however. I want real doctrine.

See the link above. Doctrine is only what is found in the scriptures and unfortunately the scriptures can be interpreted many different ways. Mans "opinions" on these scriptures is what forms "doctrines" for the LDS church and other Christian faiths. We already know the fallibility of the men claiming to have authority to speak on behalf of God, so what is this doctrine you ask for?
If you would like me to start quoting scriptures on Universal salvation I can. The Bible is often metaphorical on hell like many other teachings so Christians are not forced to believe the absurdities in some of their current "doctrines."

"Seven"
Would it be fair to say all LDS believe that polygamy is still required for exaltation because it's still doctrine of the church, spiritually done in the temple today, and remains in the canon?

"Jason"
There are those that argue such. But at least the LDS Church has an official pronouncement suspending the practice of polygamy. Very different than simple opinions.

Suspending the mortal practice because of law doesn't change Mormon doctrine on exaltation. I was only using the example to point out that just because a religion has a foundational doctrine in the canon, doesn't mean it's followers believe in it.

[_huckelberry]

I believe blood can be said to pay for sin in one instance and context and in that instance only. The divine eternal Son of God took on human nature and was made man. In that state he accepted all of the punishment that human guilt projected upon him that his death was determined by the Father to be payment for the sins of humanity. My understanding is that this legal deal works because God has the authority and power to forgive under any terms he wants. He choose one where divine suffering was made visible and place in a context where we all are asked to share in the cost of forgiveness. We are asked to share in Jesus project by baring our own cross, forgiving others and seeking righteousness. I do not think that is a complete description of the atonement but touches on some essentials.

There is a question about to whom the atonement applies. Do people outside of sufficient knowledge to believe in Jesus in the normal accept Jesus manner have any hope of salvation or is Christianity only machinery of hell for the majorty of humanity?

This second matter is important enought that it is reasonable for me to point out Christian tradation and authoriity beyond my own view and understanding. I will present some pertenent passages of the Catholic Catachisim. I should mention the Catachism is official doctrine reviewed and constructed by the highest church authorities. It represents what the official views of the largest and oldest Christian Church are.

Catachism numbered passages,

682, When he comes at the end of times to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secet disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his work s and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

1030 All who die in Gods grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell, for this a willful turning away from God, a mortal sin, is necessary and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful the Church implores the mercy of God who does not want any to perish but all to come to repentance.

VI Necessity of Baptism
1260 Since Christ died for all and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possiblity of being made partakers, in a way known to God of the paschal mystery. Ervey man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of can be saved.

.....................
My own view may be a tad less conservative that these statemens but they do make a good brief of the fundamental points I believe. My own views catagorize as neo orthodox Protestant. I view Barth Bonhoffer Moltmann Niebuhr N T Wright as guides. I view CS Lewis and George Mcdonald , who convinced me of purgatory, as guides.