DiscussMormonism.com

Sethbag wrote:Take a random sampling of 100 deeply religious people from all over the world, and put them in a room.

Maybe 1 or 2 will be Mormon. Like most of the people in that room, they will be convinced that everyone else has got it wrong, but that they themselves don't.

Sethbag, I'm not convinced that "everyone else has got it wrong"; the possibility exists that everybody else has got it wrong, and it would make my theology a lot easier to believe if everybody else has got it wrong, but I'm not absolutely convinced that everyone else has.

Maksutov wrote:As Dawkins has said, your religion is usually a matter of your geography and upbringing.

It is a fact that my upbringing was in a devout LDS home. It is a fact that I grew up in Seattle, where (at least at one time) the LDS Church was the second largest faith organization. But I tend to believe that if it was as clear that the good God who controls the universe had not inspired the LDS Church as its critics claim it is, I would have left it long ago. I would also like to think that if my upbringing had been in an Evangelical faith in the deep south, I would also have left that Evangelical faith long ago.

Bazooka wrote:

KevinSim wrote:When we talk about God casting Adolf Hitler (and other people, like jaywalkers) into Hell, what we're really talking about is Adolf Hitler casting himself into Hell. God isn't so much a majestic magistrate as S/He is a spiritual physician, and sin isn't so much a spiritual crime as it is a spiritual disease, that we all suffer from.

Two things:
1. Adolf isn't in Hell, he's been baptised into the Church....oh, unless you're making the point that Mormonism is Hell.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know whether Hitler is in Hell or not. I didn't mean to say definitively that Hitler would be cast into Hell, although I can see how you could have drawn that conclusion from what I said, so I apologize for my poor choice of words. But let me point out that just because someone is baptized doesn't mean they won't end up in Hell. In fact, to end up permanently in Hell, you have to have been at some time baptized.

Bazooka wrote:2. How does God heal people that he judges worthy of being cast into Hell?

Jesus heals them, if they'll let Him

Bazooka wrote:

If Jesus' agony can't contribute to an end of our suffering, then what can?

The question is, why was Jesus' agony necessary when in and of itself it is insufficient?

Why do you think Jesus' agony is insufficient?

I admit that it's a twisted sense of justice to think that one person has to suffer for another person's crimes, but the fact of the matter is that each individual's sense of justice is pretty twisted. Jesus' agony is very sufficient to satisfy the requirements of each individual's sense of justice, that would otherwise condemn that individual to endless agony.

Gunnar wrote:

KevinSim wrote:If Jesus' agony can't contribute to an end of our suffering, then what can?

What suffering are you experiencing that can only be ended or alleviated by Jesus' agony?

I'm not experiencing any kind of suffering now. In the past my conscience has raked me over the coals for things I have done that I knew (at least in retrospect) were wrong, but then I got to thinking that, at least as far as I was concerned, Jesus' agony would be for nothing if I didn't use it to fully repent of those acts. So I did, and since then I've been pretty much at peace.

fetchface wrote:That reminds me of some of Thomas Paine's thoughts:

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason wrote:...the internal evidence is that the theory or doctrine of redemption has for its base an idea of pecuniary Justice, and not that of moral Justice.

If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me; but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed; moral Justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose Justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself; it is then no longer Justice, it is indiscriminate revenge.

So if the doctrine of the atonement is based on the principle of pecuniary justice, why didn't God the Father just forgive the debt directly? Why did he insist that Jesus first pay it and then forgive it?

It is absurd that God made Jesus pay a debt and then forgive the loan when God could have just done that directly.

I say that God would forgive the loan, if it were as easy as that. God isn't dealing with Her/His own sense of justice; God is dealing with each individual's sense of justice, and it's a lot harder to get each of us individually to forgive that person's self than it is for God to forgive us by God's self.

mentalgymnast wrote:I'm simply asking you to use your imagination. So far, no takers.

Why do you continue to lie? Steelhead played your little game right after you posted your op. I did as well, yet you continue to ignore it. I think it is because steelhead right off the bat showed that you will have to be inconsistent with all the unsubstantiated assumptions you want to play with. Discussion is not really possible if are going to ignore people giving you what you asked for.

fetchface wrote:

KevinSim wrote:If Jesus' agony can't contribute to an end of our suffering, then what can?

Even in my days as a believing Mormon, I never understood how someone else's suffering was supposed to make mine better.

I mean, it obviously does for some people. My Facebook feed is full of people saying how much it makes their life better to know that Jesus suffered when they are having a hard time. Knowing that makes their life more bearable for some reason. It just doesn't do that for me.

I just think it is kind of crappy that someone else would have to suffer just because I did. Seems kind of pointless.

It's not that Jesus suffered because you suffered, Fetchface. Jesus suffered so you wouldn't have to suffer. As I said in a recent post, for significant periods in my life my conscience tormented me for things I've done wrong in my life. Then I thought that if my faith in Jesus meant anything at all, it meant that I could get past that torment. I didn't want Jesus' agony to have no effect in my life, so every time my conscience tried to torment me after that, I realized that Jesus had done my suffering for me, and my conscience let me be. It's been years since I've even thought seriously about my prior misdeeds.

Bazooka wrote:If one wants to take this to an extreme, the fact that Jesus has already paid for our sins by suffering in agony means it would be a wasted sacrifice if we don't do our part of the bargain by going out committing those sins.

Luckily I'm not an extremist!

Themis wrote:
I think it's obvious God hasn't talked to anyone...

If He had, what would you expect it to look/sound like so that you would be satisfied that it was God? Just how controlled would that event/situation have to be and in what proximity would you be best situated to KNOW that God had talked/communicated? What would it take? And would I be obligated to take YOUR word for it? How would you let me know that God had actually communicated to you?

Regards,
MG

Themis wrote:It's a hell of a lot better then your biggest absurdity of God wanting only one person to talk to and tell everyone else.

Still reaching out to you guys for some alternatives. by the way, it doesn't have to be just ONE guy.

Regards,
MG