I hate it how Christians attribute random events of life to "miracles."

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Kev

You say satan is the source of evil, and not god. But what is the source of satan? God came first, created satan, and allows satan to exist. So then who is the ultimate source of evil?

This is one of my biggest problems with religion.

You assume that God created Satan to be an evil person. Such is your right, but is not my point of view or belief. I don't believe God created anyone to be evil, but rather gave all the choice of which to be, good or evil. Satan has every right to be evil, just as you and I do, and Satan will be punished for his crimes just as we will.

Does God allow Satan to be evil? Yes. Did God make Satan do evil things? No. There is a huge difference there. Do you allow your child to fall when he's learning to walk? Yes. Do that therefore make you responsible for him falling and any injuries he sustains in doing so? I don't think so, but maybe you care to disagree.

So...theoretically speaking, there was nothing, god got bored being around for millions upon millions of years, since god "always was, and always will be" and decided to create, earth, angels, humans etc, and gave them free will. Now, where does "evil" originate from? My biggest problem with the christian religion is this. If god is all knowing, all powerful, all seeing etc. Then why did he not forsee Adam and Eve's "fall" in the garden of Eden? Why would an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god, purposely put a tree and a snake to tempt you in the garden, just to see them fvck up and humanity is then cursed. Seems to me, I would not create something on purpose that was going to fvck creation to hell in a handbasket. No one has yet given sound logic for that decision. Sorry, "faith" and god works in mysterious ways won't cut it. If I am supposed to follow this as my life goal then I am better off believing the Da Vinci code, it had less plot holes.

 

[Vic]

To insist on a literal interpretation of that which was obviously intended to be allegory is the height of arrogant ignorance IMO.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Kev

You say satan is the source of evil, and not god. But what is the source of satan? God came first, created satan, and allows satan to exist. So then who is the ultimate source of evil?

This is one of my biggest problems with religion.

You assume that God created Satan to be an evil person. Such is your right, but is not my point of view or belief. I don't believe God created anyone to be evil, but rather gave all the choice of which to be, good or evil. Satan has every right to be evil, just as you and I do, and Satan will be punished for his crimes just as we will.

Does God allow Satan to be evil? Yes. Did God make Satan do evil things? No. There is a huge difference there. Do you allow your child to fall when he's learning to walk? Yes. Do that therefore make you responsible for him falling and any injuries he sustains in doing so? I don't think so, but maybe you care to disagree.

But if god is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, all seeing and all knowing, then when he created satan he knew that what he was creating, the way he created it, would become satan.

The concept of free will is not compatible with the concept of an all powerful supreme creator.

 

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: Vic
To insist on a literal interpretation of that which was obviously intended to be allegory is the height of arrogant ignorance IMO.

Ahh Vic, we meet again. So for the sake of argument, explain it to me. Enlighten my ignorance. Not one pastor, prophet, or priest has yet made it make sense. I turn to you kind sir. Also, if you could point me in the direction of a handy dandy guide as to what parts of the bible I can take literally and what parts I cannot, that would be awesome. Seems that every bible I have owned forgot to put that in mine.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Yes, it's true that in christianity, sinners will burn in the "Lake of Fire for eternity." However, that is not the argument. The argument is whether or not to attribute the world's evils to God also, since good is obviously being attributed to God. This is where the term miracle comes short when you consider the inconsistencies of the claim - that an equal amount of calamaties fall upon those who follow the word of God.

Why would you attribute all good and all evil to God? First off, there are two forces at work, not one. God is not the source of evil, Satan is, so it makes no sense if you leave him out of the discussion. Although God has allowed for certain event to occur and has allowed individuals to fall prey to the temptations of Satan, he has still provided compensation for those who are wrongfully harmed in the process. So I'm failing to see how calamites affect miracles. If you feel that since God allows such things to happen that he is an evil being, I guess that's your choice. It makes sense, but only if you don't understand the whole picture.

If I'm misinterpretting or misunderstanding, please let me know.

You say satan is the source of evil, and not god. But what is the source of satan? God came first, created satan, and allows satan to exist. So then who is the ultimate source of evil?

This is one of my biggest problems with religion.

What is evil? Seriously.


Why do all internet religious discussions end up as an argument between fundamentalist Chrisitianity and radical strong atheism? That's a false dilemma. There is far more to the philosophies of the non-measurable aspects of the human condition than just the ignorant rantings of the closed-minded.

I'm not radical atheist. I went through 12 years of catholic school, went to church every sunday until the age of 18. Then I woke up. Thanks for calling me close-minded though.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Vic
To insist on a literal interpretation of that which was obviously intended to be allegory is the height of arrogant ignorance IMO.

Even if you take it as allegory, 6String's point still stands.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

So...theoretically speaking, there was nothing, god got bored being around for millions upon millions of years, since god "always was, and always will be" and decided to create, earth, angels, humans etc, and gave them free will. Now, where does "evil" originate from? My biggest problem with the christian religion is this. If god is all knowing, all powerful, all seeing etc. Then why did he not forsee Adam and Eve's "fall" in the garden of Eden? Why would an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god, purposely put a tree and a snake to tempt you in the garden, just to see them fvck up and humanity is then cursed. Seems to me, I would not create something on purpose that was going to fvck creation to hell in a handbasket. No one has yet given sound logic for that decision. Sorry, "faith" and god works in mysterious ways won't cut it. If I am supposed to follow this as my life goal then I am better off believing the Da Vinci code, it had less plot holes.

Who says he didn't forsee it? He had a plan already created that involved a Savior coming down and allowing those who did fall, which is pretty much everyone, to be forgiven and return to him again. Had Adam and Eve not partaken, there would have been no need for this plan. So what did he create the plan for if he didn't forsee them falling? After all, he gave them two commandments, 1) Do not partake of the Tree of Knowledge, and 2) Multiply. Since they couldn't multiply without the knowledge of how to do it, they were kind of stuck. What Eve did was necessary, not wrong.

As for "fvch creation to hell in a hand basket", I'm not sure I understand how you feel this will happen. God allowed sin to come into the world and then provided a way to overcome sin. I fail to see the problem. Please enlighten me.

As for the Davinci Code, it has so many holes it's not even funny. It's close on many counts, but introduces many inaccuracies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Originally posted by: Vic
To insist on a literal interpretation of that which was obviously intended to be allegory is the height of arrogant ignorance IMO.

Ahh Vic, we meet again. So for the sake of argument, explain it to me. Enlighten my ignorance. Not one pastor, prophet, or priest has yet made it make sense. I turn to you kind sir. Also, if you could point me in the direction of a handy dandy guide as to what parts of the bible I can take literally and what parts I cannot, that would be awesome. Seems that every bible I have owned forgot to put that in mine.

Start here. Get back to me.

As to your last part, the Bible clearly explains the nature of parable.

The study of the power of myth is to journey back in time and follow the evolution of the human consciousness. To say that these myths have no value, or that their study is without merit, is simply ridiculous. If you don't like what these myths have to say then that is most likely because you don't like what they tell you about your own consciousness.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Yes, it's true that in christianity, sinners will burn in the "Lake of Fire for eternity." However, that is not the argument. The argument is whether or not to attribute the world's evils to God also, since good is obviously being attributed to God. This is where the term miracle comes short when you consider the inconsistencies of the claim - that an equal amount of calamaties fall upon those who follow the word of God.

Why would you attribute all good and all evil to God? First off, there are two forces at work, not one. God is not the source of evil, Satan is, so it makes no sense if you leave him out of the discussion. Although God has allowed for certain event to occur and has allowed individuals to fall prey to the temptations of Satan, he has still provided compensation for those who are wrongfully harmed in the process. So I'm failing to see how calamites affect miracles. If you feel that since God allows such things to happen that he is an evil being, I guess that's your choice. It makes sense, but only if you don't understand the whole picture.

If I'm misinterpretting or misunderstanding, please let me know.

You say satan is the source of evil, and not god. But what is the source of satan? God came first, created satan, and allows satan to exist. So then who is the ultimate source of evil?

This is one of my biggest problems with religion.

What is evil? Seriously.


Why do all internet religious discussions end up as an argument between fundamentalist Chrisitianity and radical strong atheism? That's a false dilemma. There is far more to the philosophies of the non-measurable aspects of the human condition than just the ignorant rantings of the closed-minded.

I'm not radical atheist. I went through 12 years of catholic school, went to church every sunday until the age of 18. Then I woke up. Thanks for calling me close-minded though.

My statement as to the close-minded was not addressed to any one individual (except maybe Petrek and Jack Burton). You took offense where none was given.

If you know so much about theology, then please answer the question which I did specifically ask you.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Kev

But if god is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, all seeing and all knowing, then when he created satan he knew that what he was creating, the way he created it, would become satan.

The concept of free will is not compatible with the concept of an all powerful supreme creator.

The concept is 100% compatible. You just assume that since he has all-power, he will always use his power. Yes he knew that as Satan grew, he would eventually do what he did. But tell me, what is good without evil. God already knew the difference between good and evil. We didn't, and that's the big thing. If we are to become like God (Gen. 3:22) and understand the difference between good and evil, we must be exposed to each and then choose for ourselves which we will follow. What good does it do for use to never be exposed to good or evil, as you can't have one without the other.

Free will is not possible without exposure to good and evil, and has no purpose if there is no supreme being who can provide a way to overcome evil. Free will brings about the ideas of Justice and Mercy, and how are these possible without a supreme being?

I guess I don't understand how free will can exist without a supreme being.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic
To insist on a literal interpretation of that which was obviously intended to be allegory is the height of arrogant ignorance IMO.

Even if you take it as allegory, 6String's point still stands.

Not even remotely. If you take the story of the fall as the allegory that it is, you can quite obviously see that it is the collective memory of the awakening consciousness of the human species as it evolved from the animal mind and developed the mental powers of reason and belief and lost the single-mindedness of the animal. There was no going back, so naturally some have chosen to look on this event with regret. Earlier mythologies, particularly those that worshipped the Earth Mother, looked at it the other way, as a cause of celebration, but the warfare spread of Sky Father worship in the mid-2nd-millenium BC (caused primarily by the invention of iron tools and weapons over the earlier bronze) led to a reversal of the meaning of the tale, as conquering tribes forced the conquered into their belief systems. Where the snake and the Eve figure had been worshipped before, they were now chastised. Where the Earth had bless mankind before, it now cursed it, etc.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Kev

But if god is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, all seeing and all knowing, then when he created satan he knew that what he was creating, the way he created it, would become satan.

The concept of free will is not compatible with the concept of an all powerful supreme creator.

The concept is 100% compatible. You just assume that since he has all-power, he will always use his power. Yes he knew that as Satan grew, he would eventually do what he did. But tell me, what is good without evil. God already knew the difference between good and evil. We didn't, and that's the big thing. If we are to become like God (Gen. 3:22) and understand the difference between good and evil, we must be exposed to each and then choose for ourselves which we will follow. What good does it do for use to never be exposed to good or evil, as you can't have one without the other.

Free will is not possible without exposure to good and evil, and has no purpose if there is no supreme being who can provide a way to overcome evil. Free will brings about the ideas of Justice and Mercy, and how are these possible without a supreme being?

I guess I don't understand how free will can exist without a supreme being.

Free will can't exist because God, being omniscient, has known your fate for as long as he has existed (eternity). The ability to chose a different fate for yourself would defy God and all creation. Your "free will" is an illusion and the result of the script God created for you from the start. This then goes back to God being the source of all evil discussion, not to mention a supreme asshole for essentially creating people with the specific purpose to be rapists, murderers, etc, etc. Talk about a sick joke.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic
To insist on a literal interpretation of that which was obviously intended to be allegory is the height of arrogant ignorance IMO.

Even if you take it as allegory, 6String's point still stands.

Not even remotely. If you take the story of the fall as the allegory that it is, you can quite obviously see that it is the collective memory of the awakening consciousness of the human species as it evolved from the animal mind and developed the mental powers of reason and belief and lost the single-mindedness of the animal. There was no going back, so naturally some have chosen to look on this event with regret. Earlier mythologies, particularly those that worshipped the Earth Mother, looked at it the other way, as a cause of celebration, but the warfare spread of Sky Father worship in the mid-2nd-millenium BC (caused primarily by the invention of iron tools and weapons over the earlier bronze) led to a reversal of the meaning of the tale, as conquering tribes forced the conquered into their belief systems. Where the snake and the Eve figure had been worshipped before, they were now chastised. Where the Earth had bless mankind before, it now cursed it, etc.

[Interpretations] are like assholes...

jk

I've actually never heard this particular take on the bible. VERY interesting... some amazing parallels to human evolution (social/cultural, psychological, technological, etc etc).

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

[Interpretations] are like assholes...

jk

You got that right, and mine often do stink.

I've actually never heard this particular take on the bible. VERY interesting... some amazing parallels to human evolution (social/cultural, psychological, technological, etc etc).

Thanks! That's one of the reasons it makes so much sense to me. It incorporates everything and really helps things make sense.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

[Interpretations] are like assholes...

jk

You got that right, and mine often do stink.

I've actually never heard this particular take on the bible. VERY interesting... some amazing parallels to human evolution (social/cultural, psychological, technological, etc etc).

Thanks! That's one of the reasons it makes so much sense to me. It incorporates everything and really helps things make sense.

 

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic
To insist on a literal interpretation of that which was obviously intended to be allegory is the height of arrogant ignorance IMO.

Even if you take it as allegory, 6String's point still stands.

Not even remotely. If you take the story of the fall as the allegory that it is, you can quite obviously see that it is the collective memory of the awakening consciousness of the human species as it evolved from the animal mind and developed the mental powers of reason and belief and lost the single-mindedness of the animal. There was no going back, so naturally some have chosen to look on this event with regret. Earlier mythologies, particularly those that worshipped the Earth Mother, looked at it the other way, as a cause of celebration, but the warfare spread of Sky Father worship in the mid-2nd-millenium BC (caused primarily by the invention of iron tools and weapons over the earlier bronze) led to a reversal of the meaning of the tale, as conquering tribes forced the conquered into their belief systems. Where the snake and the Eve figure had been worshipped before, they were now chastised. Where the Earth had bless mankind before, it now cursed it, etc.

Vic, you moved up a few notches in my respect book, actually quite a few. That without a doubt is the best interpretation I have ever heard.

Edit: It still does not answer my question but, that question is better posed to those that hold the bible as the literal word of god and every word to be deemed the guide to life. Those that preach it as literal documented occurences.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Did I say something confusing?

 

[6StringSamurai]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Kev

But if god is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, all seeing and all knowing, then when he created satan he knew that what he was creating, the way he created it, would become satan.

The concept of free will is not compatible with the concept of an all powerful supreme creator.

The concept is 100% compatible. You just assume that since he has all-power, he will always use his power. Yes he knew that as Satan grew, he would eventually do what he did. But tell me, what is good without evil. God already knew the difference between good and evil. We didn't, and that's the big thing. If we are to become like God (Gen. 3:22) and understand the difference between good and evil, we must be exposed to each and then choose for ourselves which we will follow. What good does it do for use to never be exposed to good or evil, as you can't have one without the other.

Free will is not possible without exposure to good and evil, and has no purpose if there is no supreme being who can provide a way to overcome evil. Free will brings about the ideas of Justice and Mercy, and how are these possible without a supreme being?

I guess I don't understand how free will can exist without a supreme being.

Ok so you take the bible as a literal text in the story of creation then?

Why would an all loving, all merciful, god set his children up with an opportunity to fail? If the purpose of his creation is to worship him, then why not simply create everything with only that outcome? Is it now god's will for his creation to sufffer from the effects of sin? To me, that contradicts with the "loving god" persona. Why create an arch nemesis? Also, if god is real, and if god did create it as a sort of "experiment" then why would you be drawn to "worship" him?

Most of you will take my comments as flammatory, but I ask these sincerely as someone that wants to understand your side of the coing so to speak.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: 6StringSamurai

Ok so you take the bible as a literal text in the story of creation then?

Yes I do.

Why would an all loving, all merciful, god set his children up with an opportunity to fail?

Going back to the question I asked about letting a baby fall when they learn to walk. Why do you let him fall? Do you not love him? Do you want him to hurt himself? I hope the answer to these questions is no, and I'm going to assume it is. The reason is because the child must learn. In the eyes of God, we are children. If we are to become like him and return to him, we have to learn to be like him. He is in a state where he has overcome the desire to sin and has become a perfected being. If we are to be like him, we must do the same.

If the purpose of his creation is to worship him, then why not simply create everything with only that outcome?

You're seem to be assuming that God created us because he needs people to worship him and make him feel better about himself. I propose that he created us because he wanted others to have what he has, to be as he is, and has provided a means to do so for those who are willing. But how do you grow in an environment with no stimulation? There is more to our purpose than simply worshiping him, much much more.

Is it now god's will for his creation to sufffer from the effects of sin?

I don't think God wants anyone to suffer, nor do I believe he gets joy out of it. But like I stated previously with the example of the child walking, how else will that child learn? Do you have children? Do you monitor them every minute of every day to insure they never do anything that might hurt them? No offense meant by this, but I doubt you do. I don't know of anyone who could. The fact that we don't doesn't mean we don't love our children. It simply means we're providing room for them to grow, but that we are there for them when they need us.

To me, that contradicts with the "loving god" persona.

I can understand why someone would feel that way, but I don't think that's the case. No matter how much you love someone, you have to let them be who they are. To me, the most unloving God would be one that forced me to do what he wants with no explanation or care for my own personal feelings. I would often call that a dictator, and I don't know of too many people who are fond of them.

Why create an arch nemesis?

He allows evil to exist in order to allow us to grow in understanding and strength, plus all the other stuff already stated.

Also, if god is real, and if god did create it as a sort of "experiment" then why would you be drawn to "worship" him?

I'm drawn to worship him because I understand all that he has done for me and because I realize that I'm not just some "experiment". Having heard the idea that God is just some mist in the great beyond that no longer cares for the lives of his children, it's easy for me to understand why people do not want to believe in him and don't care whether he exist. But I know that's not the kind of being that he is.

Most of you will take my comments as flammatory, but I ask these sincerely as someone that wants to understand your side of the coing so to speak.

Everyone has questions, and we should never be afraid to ask them. Flame if you wish, but personally, I like this type of conversation much better.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Yes, it's true that in christianity, sinners will burn in the "Lake of Fire for eternity." However, that is not the argument. The argument is whether or not to attribute the world's evils to God also, since good is obviously being attributed to God. This is where the term miracle comes short when you consider the inconsistencies of the claim - that an equal amount of calamaties fall upon those who follow the word of God.

Why would you attribute all good and all evil to God? First off, there are two forces at work, not one. God is not the source of evil, Satan is, so it makes no sense if you leave him out of the discussion. Although God has allowed for certain event to occur and has allowed individuals to fall prey to the temptations of Satan, he has still provided compensation for those who are wrongfully harmed in the process. So I'm failing to see how calamites affect miracles. If you feel that since God allows such things to happen that he is an evil being, I guess that's your choice. It makes sense, but only if you don't understand the whole picture.

If I'm misinterpretting or misunderstanding, please let me know.

You say satan is the source of evil, and not god. But what is the source of satan? God came first, created satan, and allows satan to exist. So then who is the ultimate source of evil?

This is one of my biggest problems with religion.

What is evil? Seriously.


Why do all internet religious discussions end up as an argument between fundamentalist Chrisitianity and radical strong atheism? That's a false dilemma. There is far more to the philosophies of the non-measurable aspects of the human condition than just the ignorant rantings of the closed-minded.

I'm not radical atheist. I went through 12 years of catholic school, went to church every sunday until the age of 18. Then I woke up. Thanks for calling me close-minded though.

My statement as to the close-minded was not addressed to any one individual (except maybe Petrek and Jack Burton). You took offense where none was given.

If you know so much about theology, then please answer the question which I did specifically ask you.

What is evil? According to the bible, breaking the 10 commandments. You know, those actions that doom a person to hell for all eternity?(this is not how I define evil but for the sake of this religion discussion I think it is fine)

So if god created a person with the foreknowledge that he would be an evil person (knowing his genetic makeup/environmental conditions when being raised/all events that would occur in his life), he would be a sinner and wind up in hell... was that evil not created by god? And where is the free will for that person?

It makes more sense that it is all random chaos. How can anyone honestly believe in free will if there is a god who intervenes in ANY way whatsoever.

 

[Kev]

engineereeyore: Regarding your theory about how people need to learn and grow:

How are stillborn babies supposed to learn and grow? Aborted babies? People in remote parts of the world who never heard the "word of god"?

Are they just SOL? Or do they get a free pass to eternal glory?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kev
What is evil? According to the bible, breaking the 10 commandments. You know, those actions that doom a person to hell for all eternity?(this is not how I define evil but for the sake of this religion discussion I think it is fine)

So if god created a person with the foreknowledge that he would be an evil person (knowing his genetic makeup/environmental conditions when being raised/all events that would occur in his life), he would be a sinner and wind up in hell... was that evil not created by god? And where is the free will for that person?

It makes more sense that it is all random chaos. How can anyone honestly believe in free will if there is a god who intervenes in ANY way whatsoever.

I can't follow your reasoning. You're making assumptions and then jumping to conclusions on that basis of those assumptions.

For one thing, I wanted your opinion of what evil is, not some half-assed Bible interpretation. If breaking one of the 10 commandments is evil that dooms a person to hell for all eternity, then why don't the Jews believe in hell?

For another, I have no more problem with the idea that God created evil than I do with the idea that God created goodness, and don't see why anyone should. All that exists exists and nothing exists that doesn't exist. Or... what is, is. Some people (I have found) have trouble reconciling the fact that the universe is perfect with the fact that it does not meet their personal opinion of what they think perfect should be, and then go blaming God about it. In a ironic twist, these people have a lot in common with those who go praising God for all those "miracles."

If you want my $0.02, instead of worrying about what other people might believe in, or how this dogma doesn't fit this observation, or whatever, just start basing your own beliefs based on what you personally witness, and stop worrying about what other people might or might not believe in.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kev
engineereeyore: Regarding your theory about how people need to learn and grow:

How are stillborn babies supposed to learn and grow? Aborted babies? People in remote parts of the world who never heard the "word of god"?

Are they just SOL? Or do they get a free pass to eternal glory?

IIRC (and my apologies to him if I am wrong), engineereeyore is LDS (a Mormon), so yes, that is exactly what he believes. Mormons believe that any child that does not survive until the age of 8 years automatically get a free pass to the highest heaven. They believe that everyone who does not choose the path of God during life has a second chance to choose in the afterlife. They also don't believe in hell or any form of eternal torment, and instead believe in 3 levels of heaven, of which even the lowest is a paradise compared to earth.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Kev
engineereeyore: Regarding your theory about how people need to learn and grow:

How are stillborn babies supposed to learn and grow? Aborted babies? People in remote parts of the world who never heard the "word of god"?

Are they just SOL? Or do they get a free pass to eternal glory?

Nope. Yes. Does that help?

Everyone will have the opportunity to hear the gospel, in it's fullness, and everyone will still have the opportunity to accept it or reject it.

As for children dying early, or being aborted, there is an answer to that question also. However, to understand it completely would take me some time to explain (feel free to message me if you wish for a complete explanation), but I will try to give you a shortened version. I believe we all existed prior to coming to this earth. Many believe Christ and Satan existed, but they don't think men did. Going on the assumption that we did, there are some who grew further than others in knowledge and understanding there. The only think they lacked was a body. So their life here served its purpose by giving them what they needed, a body. There are a lot of details I'm leaving out there, but that is the main idea.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev
engineereeyore: Regarding your theory about how people need to learn and grow:

How are stillborn babies supposed to learn and grow? Aborted babies? People in remote parts of the world who never heard the "word of god"?

Are they just SOL? Or do they get a free pass to eternal glory?

IIRC (and my apologies to him if I am wrong), engineereeyore is LDS (a Mormon), so yes, that is exactly what he believes. Mormons believe that any child that does not survive until the age of 8 years automatically get a free pass to the highest heaven. They believe that everyone who does not choose the path of God during life has a second chance to choose in the afterlife. They also don't believe in hell or any form of eternal torment, and instead believe in 3 levels of heaven, of which even the lowest is a paradise compared to earth.

You are correct, I am LDS. Looks like you have everything else pretty much down, but we do actually believe in hell, but we think it's rather difficult to get to. Not impossible, but difficult. You have to be a very bad monkey.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev
engineereeyore: Regarding your theory about how people need to learn and grow:

How are stillborn babies supposed to learn and grow? Aborted babies? People in remote parts of the world who never heard the "word of god"?

Are they just SOL? Or do they get a free pass to eternal glory?

IIRC (and my apologies to him if I am wrong), engineereeyore is LDS (a Mormon), so yes, that is exactly what he believes. Mormons believe that any child that does not survive until the age of 8 years automatically get a free pass to the highest heaven. They believe that everyone who does not choose the path of God during life has a second chance to choose in the afterlife. They also don't believe in hell or any form of eternal torment, and instead believe in 3 levels of heaven, of which even the lowest is a paradise compared to earth.

You are correct, I am LDS. Looks like you have everything else pretty much down, but we do actually believe in hell, but we think it's rather difficult to get to. Not impossible, but difficult. You have to be a very bad monkey.

The Mormon version of hell, aka "outer darkness" or "the second death," is IMO not very comparable to the traditional fire and brimstone torment for all eternity of the rest of Christianity, and it is reserved solely for Satan and his minions and those who willfully blaspheme the Holy Spirit.