Sammy Jankins wrote:This is often the rationale for why we have to "walk by faith" in this life. But what this means is that almost everyone, including an apostate like me, would follow God, if we knew God was real.
Molok wrote:This is often the rationale for why we have to "walk by faith" in this life. But what this means is that almost everyone, including an apostate like me, would follow God, if we knew God was real.
Which explains why Lucifer and 1/3rd the host of heaven revolted against God, and why all those people choose to serve Satan and the end of the Millennium Reign, right?
honorentheos wrote:The way Givens refers to choosing what one loves makes it worse even than that, Sammy. in my opinion, he's suggesting that all things are intentionally made equal by God so what tips us one way or the other can't be evidence. If someone chooses to leave, it's an internal issue since the externals are controlled for by God.
He's essentially using incredibly biased language to tell someone on the fence that if they choose "reason" they are doing so of their own will in opposition to loving God and His Plan. It couldn't possibly be because the facts lean one way or the other.
It's incredible how insidious what it's implying actually is, and it gets worse as one digs into it deeper. It's not too far off from saying a person leaves the church essentially to sin.
Sammy Jankins wrote:From Terryl Givens' Letter To A DoubterAn overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
This is often the rationale for why we have to "walk by faith" in this life. But what this means is that almost everyone, including an apostate like me, would follow God, if we knew God was real. Apparently that isn't good enough for God. No, instead he erases our minds and places us in an environment where we have good reasons to doubt, and then damns us if we do. He provides an opportunity to be uncertain, then judges us for being uncertain.
How is free will enhanced by erasing our minds? Does having less knowledge enhance our ability to choose? If you tell me that getting into a bathtub with a toaster will probably kill me, did you take away my free will? If you erase that knowledge from my mind, do I have more free will?
Also imagine a leader whose followers are completely loyal. But that isn't enough for him. He erases their memories and devises a scenario in which they have every right to doubt. He then separates the "wheat" from the "tares" based on if they do.
honorentheos wrote:The way Givens refers to choosing what one loves makes it worse even than that, Sammy. in my opinion, he's suggesting that all things are intentionally made equal by God so what tips us one way or the other can't be evidence. If someone chooses to leave, it's an internal issue since the externals are controlled for by God.
He's essentially using incredibly biased language to tell someone on the fence that if they choose "reason" they are doing so of their own will in opposition to loving God and His Plan. It couldn't possibly be because the facts lean one way or the other.
It's incredible how insidious what it's implying actually is, and it gets worse as one digs into it deeper. It's not too far off from saying a person leaves the church essentially to sin.
harmony wrote:honorentheos wrote:The way Givens refers to choosing what one loves makes it worse even than that, Sammy. in my opinion, he's suggesting that all things are intentionally made equal by God so what tips us one way or the other can't be evidence. If someone chooses to leave, it's an internal issue since the externals are controlled for by God.
He's essentially using incredibly biased language to tell someone on the fence that if they choose "reason" they are doing so of their own will in opposition to loving God and His Plan. It couldn't possibly be because the facts lean one way or the other.
It's incredible how insidious what it's implying actually is, and it gets worse as one digs into it deeper. It's not too far off from saying a person leaves the church essentially to sin.
One doesn't have to leave the church to sin. The church is full of sinners, from the top down.
harmony wrote:honorentheos wrote:The way Givens refers to choosing what one loves makes it worse even than that, Sammy. in my opinion, he's suggesting that all things are intentionally made equal by God so what tips us one way or the other can't be evidence. If someone chooses to leave, it's an internal issue since the externals are controlled for by God.
He's essentially using incredibly biased language to tell someone on the fence that if they choose "reason" they are doing so of their own will in opposition to loving God and His Plan. It couldn't possibly be because the facts lean one way or the other.
It's incredible how insidious what it's implying actually is, and it gets worse as one digs into it deeper. It's not too far off from saying a person leaves the church essentially to sin.
One doesn't have to leave the church to sin. The church is full of sinners, from the top down.
sock puppet wrote:Actually, one has to stay in the church to sin. Outside of the church there is no sin.
Moreover, I judge that this is what the evidentiary situation will sustain with regard to the fundamental and crucial claims of Christian theism in general and the claims of the Restoration in particular — and I strongly suspect that this is exactly where the evidentiary situation is divinely intended to remain, pending Judgment Day. If the evidence for those claims were as conclusive as a proof in geometry, no meaningful intellectual freedom would remain to us. There can be no “opinions” as to whether, say, triangles ABC and DEC are congruent, once a valid proof demonstrating that they are congruent has been provided and accurately understood. Personal, subjective reactions to the matter are irrelevant at that stage.
Likewise, if God were to reveal himself directly and conclusively, he would destroy our freedom, so overwhelming would that revelation be.
So the evidence for the claims of Christianity and of Mormonism isn’t coercive. The facts permit and even, to some extent, warrant skepticism.