God is evil, or likes it, or enjoys it whatever

[huckelberry]

Stem you sound as though you think sin is some ignorant mistake like going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday like you are supposed to. I do not think that sort of sin is a significant enough matter to relate to the suffering in the world.

I'm not sure what you mean here. How do I sound as if sin is some ignorant mistake? I was more along the lines of sin happens, often, or so it seems, as people go along with what others are doing. The story of Jesus being crucified comes to mind. The crowd, apparently, gathers when people are killed for their sins against society. Jesus, in his case, declares, forgive them for they know not what they do. I figure we all kind of know not what we do. We go along with what we think is good, and other such things. I don't think "sin" is a good way to describe it, but I'm going with Christianity here.

......

I'm not sure "suffering" has anything to do with forgiving sin. I get that is needed on Christianity. I just don't buy it. But yes, I agree, the types of things you describe is what I was going for in terms of sin. Those and much much more. Like not believing. ....

Stem, I of course cannot be certain but I got the impression that you see people as fundamentally good without a real inclination to evil. This previous comment sort of illustrates this:
you said,
" We, after all, don't know what we're doing, as God would have it. If we sin, we are likely too foolish to realize why it's bad or how its bad. It seems God should be forgiving us whether Jesus was sacrificed or not. We're encouraged if we're forgiven freely without sacrifice, it seems to me. WE're just learning and growing, apparently...why would God get upset with us for our mistakes?"

Your strange interpretation of the "I never knew you" judgement as simply Gods fault instead of humans fault also fits that picture.

When I mentioned that forgiveness involves suffering I did not mean some arbitrary unrelated pain. Forgiveness is something given a person who has in some way injured you. The suffering in that is accepting the injury and working to rebuild what was injured. Jesus suffering was not some arbitrary thing inflicted by God. It was people who inflicted the pain and injury just as human violence with each other injures Gods love and hope for us. God accepts the injury in the hope of building something better that overcomes the brutality in human relationships. That hope combines forgiveness with actual efforts to rebuild.

I am glad the world over knows value in forgiveness.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t believe this to be the case within the scope and teachings of the restored gospel. Within traditional Christianity you are probably correct.

It always seemed to me Mormon exaltation was eternal suffering. When they taught me that loved ones or even other randoms weren't going to be exalted, but would end up with less, I saw it as pain and suffering. Who wants to be exalted above another? That would be hell to be put on eternal pedestal given all things while others were condemned to lower orders? I assume many Mormon believers don't care about that. Be that as it may. I also recall being taught two things about lower kingdoms--they are hell and they aren't half bad. It was true on Mormonism that there had to be a hell, scripture required it. And it was true, like the quoted verse in Matt 7 suggests, that there are believers whom God would not accept--indeed if Jesus is to believed they were eternally ignored by God. If the lower kingdoms were not a place to suffer--knowing there could be more--one must wonder why that type of teaching was used throughout my youth to keep me faithful, as they say? If the lower kingdoms are not meant as a place of suffering how does that square with scriptural teaching? It doesn't seem to fit, at all. Are the lower kingdoms supposed to be a kind of hell in which we suffer eternally because we didn't do enough or weren't faithful enough in our lives to reach the pedestal and such regret then haunts us forever? Beats me, but as I suggested, religion or belief in God is all pretty unreasonable anyway.

True. And, as you know, this is a major contributor to killing faith in many folks.

And increasing faith in others.

Regards,
MG

And yet, the reasoning for belief fails.

Some of your ‘troubles’ with LDS doctrine in regards to that which is described in D&C 76 have also troubled me in similar ways. One thing that helped me understand how everything might fit together in an equitable and fair way with God coming out in the end as being a merciful and just God is to simply compare the eternal worlds with the world that we live in.

As it is we live in a world with many varied cultures and racial/ethnic divisions. It’s the way it is. And yet, we all live together, even if separated by geography and political borders. We live within the confines of our cultures, practices, religious persuasions, and a myriad of other ‘separations’ and yet we are all the family of man. Most populations really never have much to do with other populations unless it is by choice and travel/communication.

I can see possible parallels between the ‘set up’ in which we see our world divided and yet together as a human population with what the future worlds might look like. Carbon copy? Of course not. Something similar?

Maybe.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

]Stem, I of course cannot be certain but I got the impression that you see people as fundamentally good without a real inclination to evil.

I see. Yes, you're right, I do. Indeed without each other I don't see how we define a good action and an evil one. Yes, it's true, I think most people tend toward caring about others, at least some others. And want to do good by them.

This previous comment sort of illustrates this:
you said,
" We, after all, don't know what we're doing, as God would have it. If we sin, we are likely too foolish to realize why it's bad or how its bad. It seems God should be forgiving us whether Jesus was sacrificed or not. We're encouraged if we're forgiven freely without sacrifice, it seems to me. WE're just learning and growing, apparently...why would God get upset with us for our mistakes?"

Your strange interpretation of the "I never knew you" judgement as simply Gods fault instead of humans fault also fits that picture.

I don't understand. If God says he never knew someone, why would it not be his fault, if, as it is said, he supposedly could know everyone, with his infinite knowledge and all? Why is it someone's fault for God not ever knowing them, if God claims he never even knew them at the time of them being created? I never knew them...or me or whoever. Why fault a human for God deciding at the moment they are created, that he'd put them on ignore?

When I mentioned that forgiveness involves suffering I did not mean some arbitrary unrelated pain. Forgiveness is something given a person who has in some way injured you. The suffering in that is accepting the injury and working to rebuild what was injured. Jesus suffering was not some arbitrary thing inflicted by God. It was people who inflicted the pain and injury just as human violence with each other injures Gods love and hope for us. God accepts the injury in the hope of building something better that overcomes the brutality in human relationships. That hope combines forgiveness with actual efforts to rebuild.

I am glad the world over knows value in forgiveness.

I'm not sure how you and I are disagreeing on the matter of forgiveness here. How can people injure God's love? Is God not impassible? If God can be injured, then are you suggesting his eternal condemnation is his personal revenge on ignorant people who messed up? Whynot just give ignorant people a pass instead of setting them to suffer eternally?

[dastardly stem]

Some of your ‘troubles’ with LDS doctrine in regards to that which is described in D&C 76 have also troubled me in similar ways. One thing that helped me understand how everything might fit together in an equitable and fair way with God coming out in the end as being a merciful and just God is to simply compare the eternal worlds with the world that we live in.

As it is we live in a world with many varied cultures and racial/ethnic divisions. It’s the way it is. And yet, we all live together, even if separated by geography and political borders. We live within the confines of our cultures, practices, religious persuasions, and a myriad of other ‘separations’ and yet we are all the family of man. Most populations really never have much to do with other populations unless it is by choice and travel/communication.

I can see possible parallels between the ‘set up’ in which we see our world divided and yet together as a human population with what the future worlds might look like. Carbon copy? Of course not. Something similar?

Maybe.

Regards,
MG

uh...I think I'll need a better explanation. How do you understand everything fits by observing people on this earth? What makes their differences give you reason to think the inequity in eternity is ok?

[MG 2.0]

Some of your ‘troubles’ with LDS doctrine in regards to that which is described in D&C 76 have also troubled me in similar ways. One thing that helped me understand how everything might fit together in an equitable and fair way with God coming out in the end as being a merciful and just God is to simply compare the eternal worlds with the world that we live in.

As it is we live in a world with many varied cultures and racial/ethnic divisions. It’s the way it is. And yet, we all live together, even if separated by geography and political borders. We live within the confines of our cultures, practices, religious persuasions, and a myriad of other ‘separations’ and yet we are all the family of man. Most populations really never have much to do with other populations unless it is by choice and travel/communication.

I can see possible parallels between the ‘set up’ in which we see our world divided and yet together as a human population with what the future worlds might look like. Carbon copy? Of course not. Something similar?

Maybe.

Regards,
MG

uh...I think I'll need a better explanation. How do you understand everything fits by observing people on this earth? What makes their differences give you reason to think the inequity in eternity is ok?

It’s not a matter of whether or not it’s “ok” in your book. As I said, that’s the way things ARE and have been throughout human history here on this planet. It is what it is. To say that in worlds beyond this that the dynamics would NOT be similar would be the anomaly.

Of course, if you’re taking the position…dogmatically I might say…that there is no possibility of a world or worlds after this then I can see where you’re coming from. Pattern doesn’t/wouldn’t equate with pattern.

To me, as a person of faith, however, it makes sense.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

stem , I have plenty of doubt about eternal suffering but I do not know everything.

Adolf at the Pearly Gates, " gee I didn't realize that things would work out poorly" .. Peter responds, " Well I am sorry nobody knows how things will work out so come in and have a seat, better luck next time."
///
to extreme?
I knew a fellow who taught some classes at the Penitentiary and got on friendly terms with a bank robber, both were fond of storytelling and the inmate had some chase stories. ..' Well that is exciting but you get caught and end up in this dull place. Why do it?' ,,,, " for how people react when you point a gun to their face"

[dastardly stem]

It’s not a matter of whether or not it’s “ok” in your book. As I said, that’s the way things ARE and have been throughout human history here on this planet. It is what it is. To say that in worlds beyond this that the dynamics would NOT be similar would be the anomaly.

Of course, if you’re taking the position…dogmatically I might say…that there is no possibility of a world or worlds after this then I can see where you’re coming from. Pattern doesn’t/wouldn’t equate with pattern.

To me, as a person of faith, however, it makes sense.

Regards,
MG

Why do you think I'm dogmatic about no life after this one? I don't accept it not because I'm dogmatic about it, but because those who claim there is one do not have good reason to think there is one. That's quite a difference. And it appears you are doing as you did earlier in the thread, when you wouldn't respond to me. You are assuming you are right about God, an afterlife and all of that. You aren't giving any reason to think those exist. Yes, as I said before, if you assume you are right then there is no reason involved. You simply want your guesses to be right. FIne, as that is, but that's not reason and it's not an attempt at conversation. That's simply guess or faith, or hope, or wishful thinking or all of the above.

[MG 2.0]

You are assuming you are right about God, an afterlife and all of that. You aren't giving any reason to think those exist. Yes, as I said before, if you assume you are right then there is no reason involved.

I am almost 100% sure that if a creator God exists there is an afterlife. I think that the evidence of God outweighs the evidence against. We simply disagree on that.

There isn’t anywhere else to go in this conversation that I can see. You will continue to ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

You want the silver platter god.

God has NEVER worked that way in the world…on the assumption that he exists. We can both continue to go around in circles on the BIG IF.

I’m very comfortable in CHOOSING a creator God.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

]Stem, I of course cannot be certain but I got the impression that you see people as fundamentally good without a real inclination to evil.

I see. Yes, you're right, I do. Indeed without each other I don't see how we define a good action and an evil one. Yes, it's true, I think most people tend toward caring about others, at least some others. And want to do good by them.

When I mentioned that forgiveness involves suffering I did not mean some arbitrary unrelated pain. Forgiveness is something given a person who has in some way injured you. The suffering in that is accepting the injury and working to rebuild what was injured. Jesus suffering was not some arbitrary thing inflicted by God. It was people who inflicted the pain and injury just as human violence with each other injures Gods love and hope for us. God accepts the injury in the hope of building something better that overcomes the brutality in human relationships. That hope combines forgiveness with actual efforts to rebuild.

I am glad the world over knows value in forgiveness.

I'm not sure how you and I are disagreeing on the matter of forgiveness here. How can people injure God's love? Is God not impassible? If God can be injured, then are you suggesting his eternal condemnation is his personal revenge on ignorant people who messed up? Whynot just give ignorant people a pass instead of setting them to suffer eternally?

Stem, I do not think the primary problem is ignorant people but the aspects of ourselves which can be intentionally selfish, uncaring and even destructive.

I think you have a point observing that people have a sense of good and an ability to do good which we share with each other. I think you are correct to observe that we would not have any awareness of good and evil without some real good in ourselves. There is a penchant in some lines of theology to speak as though there is no ability to do real good in humans.I view that idea as a dangerous exaggeration. It emphasizes the need for people to change which I can see. It misses large pieces of our access to how to change in a positive way. I think that is what you are pointing out.
///
Huckelberry's belief: Humans have a sense and desire for good which is part of who we are and how biologically we live. I think that being faithful to that dimension of ourselves is being faithful to our creator, God. So faith is not believing this or that religious doctrine it is real response to our potential for good. Faith is possible for people of all sorts of beliefs or skepticism about beliefs. Religious story and ideas can call us to faith, call us to look more clearly at our unfaith call us to accept renewal and forgiveness.

About that I never knew you scripture, I cannot force you to read it differently than you are doing. I do not think the scripture is very clear, I do not read it at all like you are . I remember some Calvinists might see it as you are using it but I feel no obligation to agree.

[dastardly stem]

I am almost 100% sure that if a creator God exists there is an afterlife.

lol. Yes. I suppose if there is a creator God there may be an afterlife. Putting that probability at 100% seems silly, but whatever. The probability of God is low enough it kind of makes this proposition worthless.

I think that the evidence of God outweighs the evidence against. We simply disagree on that.

No. We don't just simply disagree on that. Each time I've asked you for evidence, you weasel out of answering, as you did here in this thread. You referenced a couple of arguments for God in this thread, but those don't get us very far towards God even if they were sound. I suppose we can say we disagree, but it's more than that. You keep telling me and letting out that you assume God and then the arguments come along and help you think it's possible there's a God. For one, possibility does not equate to probability. And in no case have you given evidence for God--other than perhaps your own testimony. I can accept that as very weak evidence, but certainly not sufficient evidence to support the claim.

There isn’t anywhere else to go in this conversation that I can see. You will continue to ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

No. I've asked for evidence. You haven't given any. You say you have evidence. I don't know what that is. I have not said anything about reasonable doubt.

You want the silver platter god.

As I've said this is a sneaky way to speak about it. I haven't sought anything but your case for God. I don't know if you have a case for God. You won't give it. You say you've given it to others on this board before. I don't know where. And when you start talking again, you divulge that your case rests on your assumption that pre-empts your case. That tells me you don't have an honest case for God at all. You simply have canned arguments from others and I don't know why they work in your view. I've said nothing about wanting a silver platter god. That's your mischaracterization. I've certainly considered cases before and I find them wanting. All I can assume is you are being unreasonable on this question.

God has NEVER worked that way in the world…on the assumption that he exists. We can both continue to go around in circles on the BIG IF.

We haven't gone anywhere because you refuse to discuss your reasons for why you believe for some reason. I've asked, you refuse. I don't mind that for what it is. If you have no reasons, fine. If your reasons amount to you really really want there to be a God. Great. That seems to be all I've gotten out of you so far. And if so, that's not reason. It's not something to converse about. But, it seems fair enough to point that out--you aren't concerned about reason and logic, as you pointed out earlier. Seriously, MG. Fine. I don't mind that. I think it's a terrible way to go, but it's your way. That we can disagree about. It's all we've really gotten to.

I’m very comfortable in CHOOSING a creator God.

Regards,
MG

Good for you. All my questions and concerns go out the window then. You owe me no obligation to respond to my questions and concerns as expressed in the OP and throughout this thread. And for what you've said I thank you. It's more than most will offer.