just me wrote:You use it to absolve yourself of any feelings of duty or responsibility towards the rest of humanity.
Then I worded my response badly. I didn't mean to say I have no "duty or responsibility towards the rest of humanity"; I meant to say that I don't have to take the whole burden of that duty or responsibility on my own shoulders. I know that I'm incapable of solving all the world's problems, or even of figuring out some way of dividing all those problems between people who are willing to help. But because I believe in a God who does have a plan to benefit as many people as possible, I can go about an ordinary, not guilt-ridden, life, doing my share of the job and not worrying that essential parts of the job are not getting done.
That makes more sense. I def misunderstood you. However, you should keep in mind that non-believers do not have the burden of the entire world on one of their shoulders, either. It is a shared burden (regardless of belief).
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Themis wrote:God does need to be consistent to be your good God.
Why do you think that?
From the Book of Mormon teacher manual...
Mormon 9:9–11, 19. God Is an All-Knowing, Unchangeable Being Have students read Mormon 9:9–10 and 2 Nephi 9:20 silently.
• Why is it important for you to know that God is all-knowing and unchangeable? Explain to students that in order to “exercise faith in God unto life and salvation,” we must have “a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes” (Lectures on Faith [1985], 38; italics in original). Direct students’ attention to Moroni’s warning that some people “have imagined … a god who doth vary” (Mormon 9:10).
Kevin, do you not know what the Church teaches?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
just me wrote:First you show me how being tortured and gang raped can have a net positive effect on a persons life.
You are the one that brought it up.
I never said that "being tortured and gang raped can have a net positive effect on a" person's life. I said that Nietzche said what doesn't kill him makes him stronger, I asked if Nietzche was totally wrong, and I asked how we tell whether an experience is good or bad for someone in the eternal scheme of things. There's a big difference between asking those two questions and asserting that torture and gang rape "can have a net positive effect."
No. Of course he wasn't totally wrong. There are some things that can make a human stronger either physically, emotionally or intellectually and there are other things that make a person weaker in any of those ways without actually killing them.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
just me wrote:Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't the scriptures say that if God lies he ceases to be god?
That has been my experience. *poof*
There's a big difference between lying and technical inconsistency.
As I explained in another post, for someone to answer a mathematical question with "yes and no" would be inconsistent; each mathematical question of necessity requires either a yes or no answer, and not both. But in natural usage, sometimes people do say, "Yes and no." That's not necessarily a lie. What it means is that our terms are not defined rigorously enough; in one sense the answer is yes, and in another sense the answer is no.
Either the church is true and holds the keys to saving ordinances or it is not true and does not have the keys to saving ordinances.
To tell someone "no" when the answer is "yes" or vice versa is not only being inconsistent it is also lying.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Themis wrote:LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You can't get a no answer unless the church is not true. Why should God not give one a no answer to this question? In fact Moroni's promise which is the base method of the LDS church doesn't really have a no answer built in to it. You are getting desperate with some of your posts here.
There's no despair involved, I assure you. I'm not telling you something I came up with in the last hour to counter your position; I have felt this way for 35 years. If God giving an answer (either yes or no) will accomplish permanent good, God will give an answer. If the asker isn't ready for either a yes or a no answer, then God answering it will do no permanent good, so why should God answer it?
Madison54 wrote:Kevin, do you even realize how crazy that sounds? You've heard from people on here who are only a small fraction of those who've experienced pleading with God for years and years, and receiving no answer.....none.....zip....nada.
Your answer is to blame them because they are not ready for an answer? Really?
I never blamed anyone for anything. I've made recent posts on this thread that I at least thought made that clear. When people posted saying they haven't gotten an answer I have advised them to keep asking but to not put their life on hold, to keep the question in the back of their mind but to go on with their life as best as they can live it. I haven't said anything to them about blame.
Madison54 wrote:I assume you also expect them to just keep sending money to Salt Lake and giving hours and hours of their time until they are ready for an answer?
I wouldn't; why should they? If I hadn't gotten an answer from God by the time I turned nineteen, I would like to think I would not have gone on a mission. Maybe I would have saved up my tithing money in a bank account, so I could pay it to God's chosen organization when God did get around to answering me, no matter how long it took.
I guess it could. I've taken special care to make sure that I only assume those things about God that are absolutely necessary for a deity that we have any hope in understanding, but it's never wise to assume that one has arrived at one's destination and therefore one shouldn't look for possible cracks in one's philosophy.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KevinSim wrote:What about the God of orthodox Christianity? God as described by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, etc.? Is there "much more evidence against" the LDS God than there is against that God?
Themis wrote:LOL More excuses for why members do not get an answer. I think most members have been taught the way to ask.
Being "taught the way to ask" is one thing; putting some serious thought into why God will answer what one will ask is a totally different matter.
This is just another excuse. You are making crap up to protect your beliefs. YOU keep posting great examples of one who is able to deceive themselves just about anything in order to protect what you want to believe. It's a bit arrogant that you put in enough thought for your answer as a child that others who have been active for decades don't get. Again it's just an internal experience you want to believe comes from God and you need to find explanations no matter how bad to explain why other good people don't get an answer.
Themis wrote:God does need to be consistent to be your good God.
Why do you think that?
Drifting brought up what the church teaches. I gave you an example of why I require consistency from others and even myself, so God is not somehow exempt. The church teaches God is consistent and he would need to be in order to be good, and especially in order to trust such an individual. Lets face it, this God does not exists but is made up like many other Gods of Joseph Smith.
