Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

KD and 7up on ex nihilo, free will and evil

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    KD: So if the soul/intelligence wasn't, technically speaking, an uncaused cause, but came about in some fashion that didn't involve intelligent design, would it have free will? And would it have free will because it wasn't purposefully designed (i.e. no one else's will was involved in its creation)?

    7up: I think it would NOT have free will. It would either have to be deterministic from having a mechanical like origin or it would have to be entirely random. Neither of which works with true freedom of choice.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    Technically, your logic is valid but not necessarily sound. Its soundness depends on the truth of your definition of free will.

    Let me spell this out just to be sure I understand it and we are both on the same page regarding your viewpoint. From what I understand, your definition of free will is a conscious being's ability to perform actions of which they are the root cause, such that their actions reflect who they are and what they want, as opposed to what someone else wants. In other words they can choose actions that reflect the nature of their soul, which for purposes of this discussion means the essence of who they are, their innate traits, preferences, goals, etc.

    Being the root cause of their actions requires that the entity's soul is an uncaused cause. If it's not an uncaused cause, but was brought into being by something else (whether a conscious entity or a mechanistic process), that something else determined who the conscious being would be, i.e. determined their preferences, abilities, personality, etc. Thus what the being did would be the result of the creating process/being and not the being itself.

    Loose definition: An entity with free will must be able to make choices that reflect their preferences/will.

    Strict definition: An entity with free will must be able to make choices that reflect their preferences/will and not the will of someone else. The entity must also be the first, primary cause of those choices, meaning their preferences, desires, and whatever else that determines/influences their choices must originate with them and not come from another source (which you are arguing requires the entity's soul to be uncaused).
    I think this is a fairly good description, however, it makes it sound a little too much like each individual with free will is entirely independent and isolated from others, and I would not want to leave that impression.

    An example of how free will works is God himself. God has true free will. God has an essence which is entirely uncaused, and in the LDS perspective each of us has an essence within us which is entirely uncaused as well.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post

    Now for some questions and objections:

    1. Would you say that as long as the person is making choices that reflect the will that is part of their essential, uncaused nature, they have free will, even if those choices have the potential to be limited or influenced by someone else? E.g. if someone buys something they didn't really want because they were influenced by a pushy salesman, are they still making a free will choice to buy the product?
    Yes they are making a free will choice. Making choices while having different influences around is all part of free will. You can't say that "they didn't want to" make that choice. Obviously there was SOMETHING that did make them want to make that decision, otherwise they would not have made that decision.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    2. God decided when and where you would be born, and that affects not only your available choices but many of your preferences and beliefs, as we are all influenced by our families and cultures to some degree. To use your Cocoa Puffs example, God is part of the reason you choose Cocoa Puffs over Rice Krispies, because he placed you in a time and place where you would encounter chocolate and discover your preference for it. Suppose God placed you when and where he did because for whatever reason, one of the things he wanted you to do is to eat Cocoa Puffs, and so to that extent in fulfilling your free will you are also fulfilling his. Is that a problem?
    Being placed in a situation where you have the opportunity to discover a preference (a preference that "pre-exists") is not the same thing as God creating that preference within you ex nihilo.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    3. Your argument for the stricter definition of free will seems to be that you yourself must be the cause of your actions and not something that isn't you, but that since your preferences determine your actions, no one besides you can be the creator or determiner of your preferences. You said that even if you were created by a mechanistic process, you would not have free will because your attributes would be determined by something that wasn't you.
    To me, the "preferences" that you are referring to just seem like an outward expression of the inner characteristics of any given individual.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    But if you are pre-existent, an uncaused cause, your attributes were still not caused by you. They exist regardless of what you would have wanted them to be, if you were given a choice. They weren't determined by you. Therefore, according to your reasoning, you don't have free will even in your own theology.
    Incorrect. You are trying to make it as if the attributes of an individual and the individual are two different things. Nope. The attributes/characteristics of a being ARE that being.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    In order for your will to truly be free, you would have had to have created yourself, because only then would your preferences, goals, etc. and the resulting choices truly reflect your will. But creating oneself is of course impossible.
    As I pointed out to you earlier, (and Bill attempted this as well) if you think that this argument here is correct, logical and sound .... then you have just argued against the idea of God having free will. Are you arguing that God does not have free will?

    Oh, and by the way, if God does not have free will, then God does not truly love us.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    Assuming you disagree, please explain precisely why you have free will if you are an uncaused cause vs. the result of a natural, undesigned process. In both cases, you have attributes that determine your choices that were not caused by you but were not caused by any other conscious entity.
    Like I said, with a being with an essence which is eternal and uncaused, that essence and its attributes are one and the same.

    And when it comes to the purely mechanical processes, I likened it to being "random". Randomness which has no reflection of the individual is not free will. It has been a while since we spoke, so I will remind you of the quote I gave from Hausam, with the specific idea for this in bold:

    "the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are. Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make."

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    4. In terms of intuitively understanding free will, what difference does it make where your preferences and desires come from? You aren't any less who you are if God created you; the things that you are saying define who you are (preferences, goals, etc.) are still the things that define who you are, regardless of their origins. If we're talking about an RPG game, the characters are still defined by the information on their character sheets, regardless of whether that information was created by someone or they were randomly generated or they existed from eternity past.
    I actually gave a similar example in the very first video I provided. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWsQiyc832k

    I discussed a character on an RPG game, and that character has different characteristics and that individual will DO different things based on that characteristics of that individual, and if that individual were to have different characteristics, well ... that individual would do something different.

    So again, the origin of those characteristics IS VERY IMPORTANT, because if God determines absolutely every single characteristic of an individual, then God is also determining every single choice that the individual will ever make in any given situation.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    More to the point, you can avoid the problems with the strict definition by simply using the loose definition.
    I don't see any problems so far.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    5. Doesn't it strike you as odd to say you have free will only if you're an uncaused cause, but if even one step happened prior to that -- if, for instance, your consciousness came about by two pre-existent semi-consciousnesses naturally combining -- suddenly you don't have free will?
    What is a "semi-consciousness"? When do "semi-conciousnesses" ever "naturally combine"?

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    Is it really that critical to be an uncaused cause? If you or another LDS you trusted had a revelation from God that there was a step like this in the "creation" of souls, would it really throw you for a loop and cause you to believe that either you don't have free will or the revelation was false?
    Not only are you coming up with entirely invented concepts, but you are attempting to place me in a hypothetical situation where your invented concepts are supposedly going to be part of revealed religion in LDS theology. I don't see the benefit of adding such things to this conversation.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    But you've quoted (Hausam) him several times. At any rate, I feel I understand the intuitive appeal of your argument, which is perhaps what you wanted me to see. If there's something you think I still am not getting, you'll have to do something besides quote Hausam or talk about dice or atoms, because any mention of those will make my eyes glaze over.
    I used the RPG character example, which is one that you also, (by chance?) just entertained. I have presented the concepts in many, many different ways. I am sorry if your eyes glaze over. I don't know what to do about that.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    My theology doesn't depend on using your definition of free will. My conception of free will has to do more with the loose definition above.
    The "loose" definition is just a way for you to ignore and bury the logical implications of Ex Nihilo creation theology. I think it is intellectually dishonest to do that.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    I have no problems with God having created me and affecting my choices by having given me a preference for one thing over another.
    If God created every aspect of your being, then it isn't just "an affect" on what YOU choose to do. Every detail of what and who God created you to be determines everything you have ever done and everything you will ever do, period.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    God may very well have created me in a certain way and placed me in a certain time and place because he wants me to do particular things. This is in line with Ephesians 2:8-10 ... And that doesn't bother me at all; instead it gives me great comfort, because it means I'm supposed to be here and I'm supposed to be the way I am (meaning my essential, God-given nature, not my sinful nature). It also doesn't mean he's forcing me to go along with his plan;
    LDS have a concept which reflects this kind of thinking as well, but our concept of "foreordination" is clearly different than yours.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    (and BTW, how do you reconcile Eph 2:10 with your hands-off idea of God?).
    The LDS view of God is not "hands-off" at all. God has been working with us personally from eternity past in Mormon thought, and is still working with us in mortality, and will continue to work with us in immortality.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    I still have to make a choice every day whether or not to follow him, whether or not to follow my preferences (whether they are from my created nature or my sinful nature), etc.
    There you go again. Where did the nature of man come from? If God created every aspect of your being, you try to pretend here that God did not create fallible beings, yet in your theology God clearly did create men to be fallible, and therefore sinful. You can't back your way out of that one India.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    Thus my conception of free will has more to do with whether or not the agent in question is the last cause in the chain of causes leading to a particular event, rather than the first or uncaused cause of the event.
    So, the only decision you ever truly make ... is the last decision you ever make?

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    God, other people, etc. can have made all sorts of choices leading to me being in a particular situation, but I am still the one who decides what I do.
    But in Ex Nihilo theology, God made everything about what and who you are, and THAT is what determines what you do. The idea that it is truly "your decision" would be nothing more than an illusion.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    1. But it's not like they will necessarily choose chocolate 100% of the time. There are lots of possible scenarios where they would willingly choose another flavor, despite having a preference for chocolate. E.g. a friend persuades them to try the friend's favorite flavor, or the friend can't eat chocolate for some reason and they don't want to eat chocolate in front of their friend. They most likely do not have such an overwhelming preference for chocolate that they would be forced to choose chocolate (meaning through an irresistable urge) when there are reasons why they might choose differently. So yes, they are still deciding to choose chocolate.
    But what would lead them decide to try something different? Is it because this individual is curious in nature, and thus willing to try new things? Is it because the individual is easily persuaded? All of those still come down to the characteristics of an individual, you are just digging into deeper detail on the intricate nature of personality, but even if an individual has millions or billions of intricate details in their complex personality, that is still something that is ultimately determined by an omnipotent and omniscient God who creates out of nothing. In fact, in that original video cited above, I discuss this concept at minute 7:00.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    2. Put another way, if you're going to say that someone who was created ex nihilo doesn't freely choose chocolate because God gave them a preference for it, how is that different from saying that a rapist isn't responsible for his actions because he has a strong natural desire for sex and/or power? Suppose his desire to rape can be traced to his growing up with rapists and thus associating rape with what "real men" are supposed to do, and that if he had grown up in a healthy environment he wouldn't have raped anyone. Since the desire isn't an innate part of him and he's not its root cause, does that mean he's not freely choosing to rape?
    In my theology, a rapist is entirely responsible for who and what he is, because he is what he is based on his free will existing into the infinite past. His environment is not causing him to be a rapist, but instead his environment merely provides the opportunity.

    7up: Has your theodicy been able to work around the ideas that God purposefully creates morally fallible creatures, sets them up in a situation where he knows they will fail, and then sends the grand majority to hell because they fail exactly in the way that God knew they would before He even created them?

    [QUOTE=Kind Debater;73636]Technically, a theodicy addresses why God allows evil to exist, not why he punishes people in hell. So no, my theodicy doesn't address all those topics, but my theology does. (It doesn't address them to your satisfaction, I'll wager, but it does address them. )

    People going to hell is the result of the existence of evil. But, you know , whatevs.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    God creating morally fallible creatures - we've already been discussing this.

    God putting humans in situations where he knows they'll fail - why would God not have the right to do this? The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head is if you're going to argue that God is morally responsible to prevent all evil/sin from occurring, but doing so would undermine your own theodicy, which appears to depend on the principle that God's allowing human agency and moral/spiritual progression is a higher moral priority than preventing evil.
    I am not criticizing God putting humans in the situation where he knew they would fail. I put my own children in situations where it is very likely that they will fail. That is not the issue. The issue is God creating humans from God's own mind in order to be fallible beings, and then turning around and punishing them for being fallible. The supplement video to the first video likens this to God creating lead and helium out of nothing with the characteristics inherent to those elements, then "condemning lead because it sinks in water" or "praising helium because it floats in the air".

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    God sending "the grand majority" to hell, etc. - we will have to get into this on another thread. Which I will leave it to you to start when you're ready, since you have hinted elsewhere that you're busy with multiple threads and possibly multiple forums.
    We don't even have to get into it. The problems with Ex Nihilo are bad enough with even condemning a single individual to hell for being what God created that person to be. Creating billions out of nothing and condemning most of them to hell just multiplies that single problem by billions.

    7up: I suppose I could sum it up like this: LDS must try to address why God allows fallible beings of free will to make choices which will result in suffering. However, classical theists must do this AND ALSO try to explain why fallible beings were created in the first place.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    I've already understood that. That doesn't make me any more likely to adopt your views, though. Universalism and annihilationism are appealing views that make faith easier to defend to atheists as well, but that doesn't mean they're true.
    Agreed. In fact, in my video series, I simply say that Universalism is just a non-Biblical concept, which is used to try to make up for the original non-Biblical concept of Ex Nihilo. (The same is true for annihilationism.) It is better to just reject the original non-Biblical concept of creation out of nothing, and then Universalism and annihilationism are no longer necessary false shields to use in defense.

    7up: The typical response I get from evangelical Christians is to essentially claim that God MUST create morally fallible creatures, in order for them to have free will. However, that isn't true at all. Logic does not dictate that moral fallibility is a requirement for free will.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    We already discussed, on this very thread, that I don't believe this. See post 21 and post 17.

    This is the sort of statement that makes me wonder if you are really reading through and thinking about what I say before responding, or if you're just assuming I'm saying the same things other Christians have said and are responding automatically.
    I have paid attention to everything you have said and responded accordingly. I am just making sure that you don't try to back out of the positions that you have stated so for, or if you do, making sure that you acknowledge the positions that you have presented. You have stated that God PURPOSEFULLY created us to be fallible. That is the problem I have been addressing with you here. That is why I have often turned to discussing the "philosophical nightmare" of God creating people ex nihilo to be flawed and then sending them to eternal pain and suffering because they are flawed.

    That position, in my opinion, is indefensible.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    I have spent a lot of time and energy in trying to understand your viewpoint, including watching some of your videos, and in trying to write good posts that address your objections. I would appreciate it if you would at least read through my posts and make sure you understand what I'm saying (which may require a quick review of the prior discussion) before you respond.
    Please tell me when you think I have misunderstood you, and I will address it as soon as possible.

    -7up

    Comment


    • #47
      Hey 7up, good to hear from you again.
      KD: What I'm saying is this: At the moment God creates someone, they are not morally perfect but they are not sinful either. They have not done anything good or bad that could characterize them as righteous or sinful. What I mean by "morally fallible" is that they are not morally perfect and have the potential to sin. What I mean by "sinful" is someone who has already sinned or at the very least is riddled with sinful desires -- something that would innately cause them to sin. God doesn't create people as sinful because he does not create them with evil desires.

      7up: See, we are going to disagree here I think. Even Jesus Christ hat the potential to sin. Yet being morally infallible, he always chose not to sin.

      I don't think he had the potential to sin in the same way that we do. He's God. We can try to conduct a thought experiment where Jesus sinned; we can say it's theoretically possible in the sense that he is a sentient, moral being with a physical body (i.e. the theoretical requirements for doing something sinful -- understanding right and wrong and having the physical ability to carry out a wrong action -- are satisfied), but it isn't truly possible. Therefore I would say that Jesus' "potential" to sin is only hypothetical, in the sense of a thought experiment, and not an actual, realizable potential.

      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      This may just be another difference between Mormons and Evangelicals. Perhaps you think that God has no choice?
      I wouldn't put it in those terms, because to say that God has no choice seems to diminish his righteousness. E.g. Jesus chose to obey God in going to the cross. He "could have" summoned twelve legions of angels (Matt 26:53), but then he "couldn't" because he needed to be obedient and fulfill the scriptures (26:54). Jesus would never disobey God or break/fail to fulfill prophecy, but that doesn't mean he didn't choose to go to the cross. I think he even said he laid down his life of his own accord, no one took it from him.

      This whole subject of God and sin is sort of its own thing, so maybe we simply don't have the right words or concepts to adequately describe it.

      From my view, a morally fallible person who is presented with choices and the opportunity to act will inevitably make mistakes (ie sin). A morally infallible person, like Jesus, will always make the correct decision (without sin). This is the most straightforward and logical way to look at those who are sinful, like all of us, and one who is sinless, like Deity.
      I would say "eventually" rather than "inevitably", or "It's inevitable that a morally fallible person will sin, given enough time and opportunity." I think it's possible for a morally fallible person to go for some amount of time, however short, without sinning. E.g. Adam lasted long enough to name all the animals, at least.

      Where is your Biblical support for such a concept that we will be "perfect" because God no longer give us the option to make poor choices?
      It's not that we won't be able to choose differently, but we won't be tempted.

      "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matt 13:41-43)

      Also Matt 18:6 + Rev 21:27, 22:3.

      On the root cause of sin being unfulfilled desires (wrong desires IMO are things we come up with to try to fulfill right desires):

      "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." (James 1:14-15)

      "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." (James 4:1-2)

      Also 1 Tim 6:3-10, 5:11.

      Then there is the fact that Satan, who influences people to sin through temptation and deception, will be locked up (Rev 20:2-3, 7-10).

      And finally: "...the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Rom 8:21)

      I disagree entirely, and it is as if you are ignoring the entire concept of sanctification.
      True, another piece of it is the renewing of our hearts and minds by God. I believe this happens gradually during believers' lives on Earth, but we don't reach a state of true sinlessness on Earth.

      I have a scripture for you. Jesus said,

      Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
      Yes, that is our goal, but there is also the reality of Romans 7:14-25. And as one of my theology textbooks points out, Jesus included "Forgive us our sins" as part of the prayer he taught the disciples, because he knew we would continue to sin.

      I believe that these children are doing what they believe is right at that moment. I believe that children are often trained over time to become more selfish, greedy, proud, etc, thus they can lose some of these moral traits.
      Who doesn't do what they think is right in the moment? "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

      Yes, there are kids who are spoiled, neglected, etc. who end up becoming more immoral instead of more moral. But the point is, all children need moral instruction and are not paragons of virtue. The Bible is pretty clear on that, when it talks about the necessity of training and disciplining children and how God in turn disciplines us.

      KD: In the cases you're thinking of -- say, a fairly nice preschooler compared to a hard-core gangster -- it's because the child has not learned how to hurt people as the adults they're being compared to have. It's because the child has not lived long enough to experience all the hurts and temptations the adults have. In other words, the child is ignorant of evil, so no, they're not going to be as evil as someone who's thoroughly versed in evil. They're also ignorant of morality and the way the world works, and they're not going to be as righteous as a mature Christian adult.

      7up: I see your point some here, however,

      Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

      he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

      But look at the context of the second passage:

      At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18:1-4)

      In other words, the point is to be humble and trusting like a child, who knows he needs adults' help (and, in that culture, who was raised to submit to adults and be respectful). The point is certainly not that little children are righteous and can enter heaven on their own merit.

      As for the first quote (and Matt 18:10), yes, I believe children have a special place in God's heart and that many/all children who die young are in heaven, but this is due to God's mercy on their ignorance and relative innocence and not because they are righteous.

      Besides, there are passages like:

      Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Ps 51:5)

      The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies. (Ps 58:3)

      Even a child makes himself known by his acts, by whether his conduct is pure and upright. (Pr 20:11)

      And if knowledge is not that necessary for morality, why was there the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and why did Solomon ask for wisdom in order to be able to judge Israel correctly?

      7up: This is true, but the LDS view is that God wants us to learn and change so that when we face temptations, we will be able to do what God wants us to do. Again, this is part of the "sanctification" process.

      God does want us to grow spiritually and improve.

      I'm wondering a) why you are so insistent on defending the "people don't need perfect knowledge to be morally perfect" and "kids can be more righteous than adults" ideas and b) if these somehow tie into your concept of sanctification/exaltation.

      Comment


      • #48
        So I was working on a response to your last two posts, and I'm having what is a gamechanging thought on my end. Rather than potentially waste a lot of time by posting a long post that would be worthless if your worldview is actually the completely different thing that I'm thinking it might be, I will just ask you some questions instead.

        Are you saying that a created being's choices are predetermined by their characteristics, and therefore aren't choices, but an uncreated being's choices aren't predetermined by their attributes, and are therefore free? If so, can you explain why you think that the uncreated being's choices aren't predetermined?

        And are you saying that uncreated beings can somehow change even their innate, foundational characteristics while created beings can't? Is that what you mean by "In my theology, a rapist is entirely responsible for who and what he is, because he is what he is based on his free will existing into the infinite past"? If not, then what did you mean?

        Do you think that people can change to some degree? E.g. you said:

        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        I believe that children are often trained over time to become more selfish, greedy, proud, etc, thus they can lose some of these moral traits.
        But you also said:

        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        You are trying to make it as if the attributes of an individual and the individual are two different things. Nope. The attributes/characteristics of a being ARE that being.
        So can an individual change their attributes over time, or not?
        Last edited by Kind Debater; 10-05-2014, 08:28 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          In case it wasn't clear, I'm waiting for you to answer my questions before I respond further.

          Comment


          • #50
            7up: ... Even Jesus Christ had the potential to sin. Yet being morally infallible, he always chose not to sin.

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            I don't think he had the potential to sin in the same way that we do. He's God. We can try to conduct a thought experiment where Jesus sinned; we can say it's theoretically possible in the sense that he is a sentient, moral being with a physical body (i.e. the theoretical requirements for doing something sinful -- understanding right and wrong and having the physical ability to carry out a wrong action -- are satisfied), but it isn't truly possible. Therefore I would say that Jesus' "potential" to sin is only hypothetical, in the sense of a thought experiment, and not an actual, realizable potential.
            The point I am making is that the choices that Christ makes are just as real as the choices that you and I make. However, as a reflection of His Divine character, he always chooses the correct moral choice.

            7up: This may just be another difference between Mormons and Evangelicals. Perhaps you think that God has no choice?

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            I wouldn't put it in those terms, because to say that God has no choice seems to diminish his righteousness. E.g. Jesus chose to obey God in going to the cross. He "could have" summoned twelve legions of angels (Matt 26:53), but then he "couldn't" because he needed to be obedient and fulfill the scriptures (26:54). Jesus would never disobey God or break/fail to fulfill prophecy, but that doesn't mean he didn't choose to go to the cross. I think he even said he laid down his life of his own accord, no one took it from him. This whole subject of God and sin is sort of its own thing, so maybe we simply don't have the right words or concepts to adequately describe it.
            I try to keep it simple. He had free will, and the choices were available to Him.

            7up: From my view, a morally fallible person who is presented with choices and the opportunity to act will inevitably make mistakes (ie sin). A morally infallible person, like Jesus, will always make the correct decision (without sin). This is the most straightforward and logical way to look at those who are sinful, like all of us, and one who is sinless, like Deity.

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            I would say "eventually" rather than "inevitably", or "It's inevitable that a morally fallible person will sin, given enough time and opportunity." I think it's possible for a morally fallible person to go for some amount of time, however short, without sinning. E.g. Adam lasted long enough to name all the animals, at least.
            "Eventually," if given the time and opportunity (and they will have time and opportunity) makes it "inevitable." The only way to avoid it is to not give time and opportunity, which is certainly not the reality in which we exist.

            "Where is your Biblical support for such a concept that we will be "perfect" because God no longer give us the option to make poor choices?"

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            It's not that we won't be able to choose differently, but we won't be tempted.

            "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matt 13:41-43) Also Matt 18:6 + Rev 21:27, 22:3.
            Let's post these other references you gave:

            Rev 21: 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but only they that are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
            Rev. 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.


            None of these say that we will be no longer tempted. They say that 1) the wicked will be removed 2) the righteous will enter the kingdom of God 3) the righteous will serve in the Kingdom. You are assuming that we become righteous because God takes away the temptation. However, that is a baseless assumption. I believe that IF those who are willing to follow God and live by faith in following His commandments are given the full awareness of God's existence, then they will choose not to sin. God hasn't taken away anything in that scenario.

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            On the root cause of sin being unfulfilled desires (wrong desires IMO are things we come up with to try to fulfill right desires):
            "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." (James 1:14-15)
            "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." (James 4:1-2) Also 1 Tim 6:3-10, 5:11.
            Our evil desires are meant to be removed, especially in our mortal life, by a process in our walk with Christ known as "sanctification".

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            Then there is the fact that Satan, who influences people to sin through temptation and deception, will be locked up (Rev 20:2-3, 7-10).
            The reason that Satan is "bound" is not because God literally "locks him away". The "lake of fire" is metaphor. It is a spiritual state. The reason why Satan is "bound" at the Second Coming and through the grand part of the millenium is BECAUSE the only people left on Earth are the righteous in God's kingdom. Even when tempted, the righteous choose the good, rather than the evil, which is precisely what "binds Satan up". This was accomplished through Christ, who sanctifies the Saints.

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            And finally: "...the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Rom 8:21)
            Again, there is no scripture here that says that opportunities to choose are taken away from us. That is an absolutely unfounded assertion.



            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            True, another piece of it is the renewing of our hearts and minds by God. I believe this happens gradually during believers' lives on Earth, but we don't reach a state of true sinlessness on Earth.
            No. However, we are meant to make great strides. And again, if we are willing to allow God to sanctify us by faith, there will be a powerful righteousness at His Coming.

            7up: I disagree entirely, and it is as if you are ignoring the entire concept of sanctification.

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            Yes, that is our goal, but there is also the reality of Romans 7:14-25. And as one of my theology textbooks points out, Jesus included "Forgive us our sins" as part of the prayer he taught the disciples, because he knew we would continue to sin.
            But less and less sin throughout our lives. The more we walk with God, with the greater diligence, the better people we become. Paul's explanation in Romans 7 also includes the concepts explained in his other letters, namely that as Paul because more and more aware of what sin is and how it affects everyone around us, then we learn to turn away from it as something repulsive. Eventually, more "minor" sins come to the forefront as the "major" sins are washed away, yet even those "minor" sins should become repulsive to us as God continues to work in order to "perfect the Saints".

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            Who doesn't do what they think is right in the moment?
            Anybody who acts against their own conscience is doing something they know isn't right.

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            In other words, the point is to be humble and trusting like a child, who knows he needs adults' help (and, in that culture, who was raised to submit to adults and be respectful). The point is certainly not that little children are righteous and can enter heaven on their own merit.
            Agreed. It is God who has to enter the lives of these individuals, IF they choose to allow it. Allowing someone who knows how to do something better than you show you how to do it is, "humble and trusting like a child." You are correct that they cannot make it on their own merit. God has to work a miracle within them.

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            As for the first quote (and Matt 18:10), yes, I believe children have a special place in God's heart and that many/all children who die young are in heaven, but this is due to God's mercy on their ignorance and relative innocence and not because they are righteous.
            If this is the case, then .... in YOUR theology, why wouldn't God just have all people die in ignorance and relative innocence while in childhood, so that all people could go to heaven?

            (By the way, that question does not work against my theology.)

            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            Besides, there are passages like:
            Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Ps 51:5)
            The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies. (Ps 58:3)
            Even a child makes himself known by his acts, by whether his conduct is pure and upright. (Pr 20:11)

            And if knowledge is not that necessary for morality, why was there the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and why did Solomon ask for wisdom in order to be able to judge Israel correctly?
            There are different kinds of knowledge. The text specifies "the knowledge of good and evil". It is not the same as "absolute knowledge of all things."

            -7up

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              7up: ... Even Jesus Christ had the potential to sin. Yet being morally infallible, he always chose not to sin.
              Unlike Smith, who brought sin to an art form.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                The point I am making is that the choices that Christ makes are just as real as the choices that you and I make. However, as a reflection of His Divine character, he always chooses the correct moral choice.
                Sure. And as you say, his always choosing correctly is a reflection of his divine character. Those who aren't divine don't always make the correct choice.

                7up: From my view, a morally fallible person who is presented with choices and the opportunity to act will inevitably make mistakes (ie sin). A morally infallible person, like Jesus, will always make the correct decision (without sin). This is the most straightforward and logical way to look at those who are sinful, like all of us, and one who is sinless, like Deity.

                KD: I would say "eventually" rather than "inevitably", or "It's inevitable that a morally fallible person will sin, given enough time and opportunity." I think it's possible for a morally fallible person to go for some amount of time, however short, without sinning. E.g. Adam lasted long enough to name all the animals, at least.

                7up: "Eventually," if given the time and opportunity (and they will have time and opportunity) makes it "inevitable." The only way to avoid it is to not give time and opportunity, which is certainly not the reality in which we exist.
                Fine. My main point here in making the distinction I did is that God created people who have the theoretical possibility of doing the right thing, even if it's only a theoretical possibility. God didn't create people who weren't capable of good, in other words.


                7up: "Where is your Biblical support for such a concept that we will be "perfect" because God no longer give us the option to make poor choices?"

                KD: It's not that we won't be able to choose differently, but we won't be tempted.

                "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matt 13:41-43) Also Matt 18:6 + Rev 21:27, 22:3.

                7up: Let's post these other references you gave:

                Rev 21: 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but only they that are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
                Rev. 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.


                None of these say that we will be no longer tempted. They say that 1) the wicked will be removed 2) the righteous will enter the kingdom of God 3) the righteous will serve in the Kingdom.
                You are missing 4) all causes of sin will be removed.

                You are assuming that we become righteous because God takes away the temptation.
                What do you think "all causes of sin" refers to? Is temptation not one possible cause of sin?

                I believe that IF those who are willing to follow God and live by faith in following His commandments are given the full awareness of God's existence, then they will choose not to sin.
                Really. Didn't work for Adam and Eve. Didn't work for Cain, who had God talking to him directly and telling him not to sin. Then there are the numerous people in the Bible who saw direct evidence of God and then sinned/denied him.

                KD: On the root cause of sin being unfulfilled desires (wrong desires IMO are things we come up with to try to fulfill right desires)...

                7up: Our evil desires are meant to be removed, especially in our mortal life, by a process in our walk with Christ known as "sanctification".
                Sure. I've seen my desires change as I've matured. And I expect that people in heaven won't have evil desires straight out -- the effects of living in a fallen world and its corruption of their desires/consciences will be removed, I think. People could, in theory, choose to rebel and do evil, but they won't have anything tempting them to, like dissatisfaction or an unfulfilled need.

                The reason that Satan is "bound" is not because God literally "locks him away". The "lake of fire" is metaphor. It is a spiritual state. The reason why Satan is "bound" at the Second Coming and through the grand part of the millenium is BECAUSE the only people left on Earth are the righteous in God's kingdom. Even when tempted, the righteous choose the good, rather than the evil, which is precisely what "binds Satan up". This was accomplished through Christ, who sanctifies the Saints.
                This may be the root of our disagreement here on sanctification. I just don't know that humans ever get to the point where they would do the right thing no matter how strong the temptation. That sounds to me like a divine quality, something that is unique to God.

                Besides, it really sounds to me like the Bible is saying that Satan is bound/defeated/etc. so that he will not tempt, deceive, etc.:

                "And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended." (Rev 20:2-3)

                "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." (Heb 2:14-15)

                Again, there is no scripture here that says that opportunities to choose are taken away from us. That is an absolutely unfounded assertion.
                Whoa there. I'm talking about temptation and causes of sin being removed, not freedom of choice. See above.

                But less and less sin throughout our lives. The more we walk with God, with the greater diligence, the better people we become. Paul's explanation in Romans 7 also includes the concepts explained in his other letters, namely that as Paul because more and more aware of what sin is and how it affects everyone around us, then we learn to turn away from it as something repulsive. Eventually, more "minor" sins come to the forefront as the "major" sins are washed away, yet even those "minor" sins should become repulsive to us as God continues to work in order to "perfect the Saints".
                Sure. I think we agree on sanctification during our lives on Earth.

                If this is the case, then .... in YOUR theology, why wouldn't God just have all people die in ignorance and relative innocence while in childhood, so that all people could go to heaven?
                I don't know that all people who die as infants go to heaven. It's possible but I am not certain. However, I will answer your question anyway.

                God says he has a reason for creating people who will be punished:

                "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." (Pr 16:4)

                And one of those reasons is to glorify himself:

                "For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth. But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." (Ex 9:15-16)

                And God wanted to prove his love for us:

                "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—-but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:6-8)

                And there is some value in suffering:

                "For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering." (Heb 2:10)

                "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness...Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him." (James 1:2-3, 12)

                (By the way, that question does not work against my theology.)
                Do you think there is anyone who will end up in Outer Darkness? Do you think they would not go there if they died in infancy instead?

                KD: And if knowledge is not that necessary for morality, why was there the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and why did Solomon ask for wisdom in order to be able to judge Israel correctly?

                7up: There are different kinds of knowledge. The text specifies "the knowledge of good and evil". It is not the same as "absolute knowledge of all things."
                I already granted you that full omniscience wasn't necessary for perfect moral behavior. The point was that the ignorance of children is not a net advantage for them in terms of their morality.

                Now back to the question that I am waiting on you to answer: can people change or not?

                Our evil desires are meant to be removed, especially in our mortal life, by a process in our walk with Christ known as "sanctification".
                Aren't desires part of a person's attributes? I seem to recall a certain quote by someone named Hausam...

                "the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are."

                So are your evil desires part of your fundamental nature? Is God changing you into someone who is no longer you as he sanctifies you? Or are they something that is not part of your true fundamental nature, something that can be learned, as you implied when you said:

                I believe that children are often trained over time to become more selfish, greedy, proud, etc, thus they can lose some of these moral traits.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Here's another passage to support the idea that causes of sin are not created by God and are removed in heaven:

                  For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:16-17)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                    [indent]What I'm saying is this: At the moment God creates someone, they are not morally perfect but they are not sinful either. They have not done anything good or bad that could characterize them as righteous or sinful. What I mean by "morally fallible" is that they are not morally perfect and have the potential to sin. What I mean by "sinful" is someone who has already sinned or at the very least is riddled with sinful desires -- something that would innately cause them to sin. God doesn't create people as sinful because he does not create them with evil desires.
                    What "desires" led Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit?

                    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                    I would say "eventually" rather than "inevitably", or "It's inevitable that a morally fallible person will sin, given enough time and opportunity." I think it's possible for a morally fallible person to go for some amount of time, however short, without sinning. E.g. Adam lasted long enough to name all the animals, at least.
                    Neither of the terms "eventual" and "inevitable" address how long it was going to take for sin to occur. Those terms simply addresses the idea that Adam and Eve would transgress God's law at some point.

                    7up: See, we are going to disagree here I think. Even Jesus Christ hat the potential to sin. Yet being morally infallible, he always chose not to sin.

                    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                    I don't think he had the potential to sin in the same way that we do. He's God. We can try to conduct a thought experiment where Jesus sinned; we can say it's theoretically possible in the sense that he is a sentient, moral being with a physical body (i.e. the theoretical requirements for doing something sinful -- understanding right and wrong and having the physical ability to carry out a wrong action -- are satisfied), but it isn't truly possible. Therefore I would say that Jesus' "potential" to sin is only hypothetical, in the sense of a thought experiment, and not an actual, realizable potential.
                    We don't have to get real deep into this, because neither Mormon or Evangelical theologians know the details. My point is that God the Father knew that Jesus WOULD not sin, which is not the same as Jesus COULD not sin. Jesus had free will. The scriptures reveal that Jesus experienced "temptations".

                    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                    I wouldn't put it in those terms, because to say that God has no choice seems to diminish his righteousness.
                    Exactly correct.

                    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                    This whole subject of God and sin is sort of its own thing, so maybe we simply don't have the right words or concepts to adequately describe it.
                    We can leave that subject aside as it is not really necessary for our conversation. The one point that IS pertinent to the conversation is this:

                    God has an essence that is eternal, and God has free will. LDS believe that each and every one of us have an essence which is also eternal, and this is how it is possible for us to have free will as well.

                    -7up

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      A couple concepts I wanted to revisit. A few posts ago, you wrote:

                      Originally posted by Kind Debater
                      We talked about this earlier in this thread (page 3). People in heaven will be "perfect" in that they won't sin, and the reason they won't sin is because they will no longer have any unmet needs, temptations or sinful desires. The environment will be such that there will be no temptation to sin or tests of faith, and the effects of the fall and whatever sinful desires we acquired during life will be gone. People in heaven won't have the sort of perfect morality that would be necessary for them to behave perfectly on earth as Jesus did, i.e. the perfect righteousness that only God himself has.
                      Let me ask you this. If all God needs to do to get rid of sin is take away temptation, then why doesn't God simply do that now? All suffering and sin would cease if God simply acted by removing the "effects of the fall" immediately.

                      Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden to begin with? What is the purpose of God allowing us to enter mortality which is riddled with sin and suffering?

                      From the LDS point of view, God WANTS us to learn how to choose the right thing in the midst of choice and opposition. This way, when temptations arise, we are then suited to resist those temptations. God doesn't want to remove the options/choices altogether. That isn't freedom. The fact that God wants us to face temptations is clear by how He has set up this world and how He allows the trials to continue.

                      Are we responsible for the sins we commit, or are we simply victims of circumstance? Do we sin because we inherited a sinful nature that someone else chose for us? Likewise, will God simply give the elect that he randomly chooses a new nature that God Himself chooses for us? If that is the case, then it is all out of our hands anyway, and we are not responsible for our actions.

                      You seem to be saying above that if God simply takes away temptation, then we will be able to participate in paradise/heaven. This kind of thinking probably stems from your Ex Nihilo foundations. I think that many Christians also believe that, just like how God magically and instantaneously creates our spirits from nothing, at the Second Coming God will magically and instantaneously make our spirits righteous.

                      You are missing a some big pieces in the plan of salvation if these are the kinds of positions you hold. Certainly you are familiar with the concept of "soul building", at least in a general sense. Sure, we will be justified for sins when we repent, but sanctification is a purification process and we align our will with God's will so we no longer have the desire to sin in the first place. We are meant to become something better than we were before.

                      Also, I reject your translation of Mat 13:41 saying that the angels will remove "causes of sin" in the sense that they will remove our freedom. The angels will remove false religion, false teachers, and false doctrine which cause people to stumble. Certainly the culture of sinfulness will be removed because the wicked will be removed, but Satan will be "bound" because there will be nobody left on Earth who follow his ways; not because God literally ties him up. The angels will not remove freedom of choice. These translations are better:

                      "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness"

                      or

                      "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity


                      7up wrote: I disagree entirely, and it is as if you are ignoring the entire concept of sanctification.

                      Originally posted by Kind Debater
                      True, another piece of it is the renewing of our hearts and minds by God. I believe this happens gradually during believers' lives on Earth, but we don't reach a state of true sinlessness on Earth.
                      I never said we would reach perfection. In fact, Joseph Smith clearly taught otherwise,

                      “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel– you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.” Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:306-307

                      Originally posted by Kind Debater
                      And if knowledge is not that necessary for morality, why was there the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and why did Solomon ask for wisdom in order to be able to judge Israel correctly ...I'm wondering a) why you are so insistent on defending the "people don't need perfect knowledge to be morally perfect" ...
                      Please demonstrate from scripture that the wisdom that Solomon obtained made him a more "moral" person. Even Solomon realized that this was not the case. Furthermore, I will posit to you that the fallen angel Lucifer has far more knowledge than you , or I or Moses, or Solomon or anyone else living on this Earth at this time. This knowledge does not result in righteousness.

                      Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature" in mortality. He did not ever seem to know when the Second Coming would be. Having to increase in wisdom and the idea that He did no know something did not make Jesus any more or less "moral".

                      7up quoted: Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

                      Originally posted by Kind Debater
                      Yes, that is our goal, ....
                      A goal that you apparently think is never meant to be realized.

                      Originally posted by Kind Debater
                      Yes, that is our goal, but there is also the reality of Romans 7:14-25. And as one of my theology textbooks points out, Jesus included "Forgive us our sins" as part of the prayer he taught the disciples, because he knew we would continue to sin.
                      Yes, but if a person continues in the same sins that he/she was involved in before entering a relationship with Jesus Christ, and there is no "improvement", I would seriously call into question that person's salvation, and it is very likely that the relationship that the person claims to have with Christ is not real. Faith without works is dead, and entrance into the kingdom of God is not a license to continue in sin.

                      Originally posted by Kind Debater
                      In other words, the point is to be humble and trusting like a child, who knows he needs adults' help (and, in that culture, who was raised to submit to adults and be respectful). The point is certainly not that little children are righteous and can enter heaven on their own merit.
                      I never said that they can enter heaven on their own merit. Christ is the only one. However, the very characteristics of humility, submissiveness, and respect to adults and/or God are characteristics of righteousness and are characteristics which lead one to accept God's grace and salvation.

                      -7up

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                        Here's another passage to support the idea that causes of sin are not created by God and are removed in heaven:

                        For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:16-17)
                        This occurs in two ways

                        1) the process of sanctification removes the desire to do wicked from the hearts of the righteous

                        2) the wicked are removed

                        You are reading the concept of God removing our options into the text, rather than deriving the doctrine from the text. Your interpretation is wrong.


                        - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                        God says he has a reason for creating people who will be punished:...And one of those reasons is to glorify himself:
                        ....
                        And God wanted to prove his love for us:
                        ...

                        What would you say about a man who got two puppies to keep, and the man had power over both of these creatures, and could do what he wanted with them. One puppy lived a nice life in the home with good food and nourishment and love and tender care. The other puppy was thrown in a cage of torture. The man says to both puppies,
                        "see how powerful I am, I can give a great life to one of you and pain and misery to the other."

                        "Isn't it glorious?"

                        "Puppy number one, do you love me now that you see what kind of misery I could have put you in? Don't you feel privileged to experience my grace?"



                        I have seen this very same kind of portrayal of God presented to the world by "Christians". No wonder people think that the God of Christianity is a monster. The reason I am on this forum is to make you all realize the great errors that you are making in presenting your ideas of theology to the world, which ... for good reason, is being rejected. Are you going to be part of the solution, or part of the problem?

                        -7up
                        Last edited by seven7up; 02-01-2015, 02:46 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          7up: Again, there is no scripture here that says that opportunities to choose are taken away from us. That is an absolutely unfounded assertion.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Whoa there. I'm talking about temptation and causes of sin being removed, not freedom of choice.
                          Hey kids, what do you want for breakfast? Cheerios, Cheerios or Cheerios. Your choice.

                          If this is your position, then there is no point to this life at all.

                          7up: I believe that IF those who are willing to follow God and live by faith in following His commandments are given the full awareness of God's existence, then they will choose not to sin.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Really. Didn't work for Adam and Eve.
                          Adam and Eve were not living by faith, they were living by sight in the garden. You provided an example contrary to what I mentioned above.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Didn't work for Cain, who had God talking to him directly and telling him not to sin.
                          Again, Cain is not an example of someone who learned to obey God by means of faith. You just provided another example absolutely contrary to what I described above.

                          To be clear, my description above refers to someone who is living in mortality, outside the presence of God, does not have a perfect knowledge of God's existence, and so forth. Let's say a person like you or me (or the grand majority of humanity). Let's say that a person gains faith in God, and decides to follow Christ and His example. If this individual does this, and is justified and sanctified through Christ through faith and becomes righteous through the gospel in mortality and repents of sin and learns to follow God's commandments, then how much more righteous will this person become when he is finally faced with the absolute presence and knowledge of God?

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Then there are the numerous people in the Bible who saw direct evidence of God and then sinned/denied him.
                          Those are they who are in the worst position possible. Much like Lucifer. Sons of perdition. Again, I am not referring to those people at all. In fact, that is the exact opposite of the concept I refer to above.

                          7up: Our evil desires are meant to be removed, especially in our mortal life, by a process in our walk with Christ known as "sanctification".

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Sure. I've seen my desires change as I've matured. And I expect that people in heaven won't have evil desires straight out -- the effects of living in a fallen world and its corruption of their desires/consciences will be removed, I think.
                          This sentence in bold is what I referred to in my last post. Many "mainstream" Christians don't worry about repenting of their sins, because they expect that God will "remove" those desires from them, perhaps at the Second Coming. Just as God supposedly created your spirit from nothing instantaneously, God will simply recreate your spirit into something different and your will has nothing to do with it.

                          That isn't how it works in LDS theology because "Free-Agency/Free-will" is at the core of it all. God creates new creatures out of us ... this is true, however, it requires us to submit our will to His. Not everyone is willing to do that. If it did not require us to submit our will to God's, then God could save everyone despite our will. Universal salvation would be the result if that were the case, because God/Savior , "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          People could, in theory, choose to rebel and do evil, but they won't have anything tempting them to, like dissatisfaction or an unfulfilled need.
                          So, are you telling me that all of the suffering, death and evil could have been avoided altogether, if God would have satisfied every one of our unfulfilled needs to begin with? That makes it sound like God's fault again. He creates creatures with needs that would prevent them from committing sin, yet God refrains from providing those needs, and then when they sin because of unfulfilled needs, then God punishes them.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          God says he has a reason for creating people who will be punished:
                          Looks like you are a closet Calvinist after all. And you should be, because you believe in Ex Nihilo creation. They go hand in hand.

                          The scriptures are interpreted much differently from the LDS perspective, because we see these individuals as existing in the pre-mortal spiritual realm. Those spirits who are placed in different positions (nations, eras, families, etc) are placed there for very specific reasons, reasons known by God.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          And God wanted to prove his love for us.
                          But not all of us, right? Just the ones who God chooses. Of course, nobody deserves salvation and nobody has the will to follow God on his/her own, so God's choice is entirely arbitrary, right?

                          7up: ....in YOUR theology, why wouldn't God just have all people die in ignorance and relative innocence while in childhood, so that all people could go to heaven? By the way, that question does not work against my theology.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Do you think there is anyone who will end up in Outer Darkness? Do you think they would not go there if they died in infancy instead?.
                          God knows the nature and character of every spirit before they enter mortality. He already knows who will rebel, and those who will not. The LDS position tends to be this: God will not have a spirit who will end up in Outer Darkness die in infancy. Those rebellious spirits will have the opportunity to act out their rebellion, there will be no doubt about their deserving a conviction to such a state because their works will be manifest.

                          7up: There are different kinds of knowledge. The text specifies "the knowledge of good and evil". It is not the same as "absolute knowledge of all things."

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          I already granted you that full omniscience wasn't necessary for perfect moral behavior. The point was that the ignorance of children is not a net advantage for them in terms of their morality.
                          If children die without accepting Christ, do they go to heaven or hell? You didn't really answer my question directly. You quoted some scripture without your interpretation.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Now back to the question that I am waiting on you to answer: can people change or not?
                          My very next quote that you quoted in your post answered this question:

                          7up: Our evil desires are meant to be removed, especially in our mortal life, by a process in our walk with Christ known as "sanctification".

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Aren't desires part of a person's attributes? I seem to recall a certain quote by someone named Hausam...

                          "the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are."

                          So are your evil desires part of your fundamental nature?
                          The desires are a result of our nature. This is where free will becomes critical and fundamental to the conversation. God has found a way to change the nature of who and what we are, however, it requires the will of both God AND that individual. It is a process that started in eternity past and will continue beyond this life, but in mortality it grows in leaps and bounds. There are those who, by nature are flawed, however, they are also by nature to at some point be willing to recognize those flaws and work with God in the process of repentance.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Is God changing you into someone who is no longer you as he sanctifies you?
                          In a sense yes, and in a sense no. There is something inherently inside an individual that is willing to change and be sanctified, or not willing.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Or are they something that is not part of your true fundamental nature, something that can be learned, as you implied when you said:

                          7up: I believe that children are often trained over time to become more selfish, greedy, proud, etc, thus they can lose some of these moral traits.
                          What I am implying by my statement is that I reject the concept known as "total depravity" of the entire human race.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          This may be the root of our disagreement here on sanctification. I just don't know that humans ever get to the point where they would do the right thing no matter how strong the temptation. That sounds to me like a divine quality, something that is unique to God.
                          That is why many LDS view other Christians as those who don't accept what the Bible really teaches. The Bible teaches that we will partake in the divine nature, we will be like Christ. LDS feel that many Christians don't understand how powerful the atonement really is. It is capable of exaltation of the saints, to make them "perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            Are you saying that a created being's choices are predetermined by their characteristics, and therefore aren't choices, but an uncreated being's choices aren't predetermined by their attributes, and are therefore free? If so, can you explain why you think that the uncreated being's choices aren't predetermined?
                            I am saying:

                            1) If God creates and individual entirely from God's own mind, and every single attribute of that individual was brought into existence "ex nihilo" by God, then God also then determines any "choice" that this individual is said to have made.

                            2) Jesus Christ, a being who has an essence which has existed from eternity past and has, at His core, an essence which was not created "from nothing" has true free will. The essence of God has free will from eternity past. (The same is true for God the Father by the way.) and that free will has always been used perfectly.

                            3) Sinful man is like God in the sense that he too has an essence of free will which has existed from eternity past. The difference is that imperfect man has not and does not use that free will perfectly as God does. Therefore, God has found a way, for those who are willing, to "purify" the those beings whom God has chosen for eternal salvation/exaltation. Why did he choose those individuals? Because God knows them so well from eternity past that God knows who will be willing and who will not.

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            And are you saying that uncreated beings can somehow change even their innate, foundational characteristics...?
                            As I said above, God's plan of salvation is to take those who have humility within their innate and foundational characteristics, and work with their will in order to make them into something that they otherwise would not be.

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            And are you saying that ... created beings can't?
                            Beings created by God "out of nothing" could have been whatever God wanted them to be from the beginning and they would have done whatever God wanted them to do from the beginning. They would do what God created them to do, and they would be what God created them to be; past, present and future. Nothing more, nothing less.

                            -7up

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              What "desires" led Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit?
                              "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate" (Gen 3:6)

                              Eve had the desire to eat food that is good and attractive and the desire to become wise. Neither of those desires are evil in and of themselves. The problem was Eve's choosing to believe the serpent's lie that eating the forbidden fruit was a good way to satisfy those desires.

                              Neither of the terms "eventual" and "inevitable" address how long it was going to take for sin to occur. Those terms simply addresses the idea that Adam and Eve would transgress God's law at some point.

                              We don't have to get real deep into this, because neither Mormon or Evangelical theologians know the details. My point is that God the Father knew that Jesus WOULD not sin, which is not the same as Jesus COULD not sin. Jesus had free will. The scriptures reveal that Jesus experienced "temptations".
                              Okay.

                              The one point that IS pertinent to the conversation is this:

                              God has an essence that is eternal, and God has free will. LDS believe that each and every one of us have an essence which is also eternal, and this is how it is possible for us to have free will as well.
                              God is eternal: Yes.
                              God has free will: Yes.
                              People have an eternal essence: No.
                              An eternal essence is a prerequisite for having free will: No.

                              The third sentence is dependent on LDS theology, and I don't see myself accepting that unless I became LDS myself.

                              The falsity of the fourth sentence is what I am trying to convince you of.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                Let me ask you this. If all God needs to do to get rid of sin is take away temptation, then why doesn't God simply do that now? All suffering and sin would cease if God simply acted by removing the "effects of the fall" immediately.

                                Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden to begin with? What is the purpose of God allowing us to enter mortality which is riddled with sin and suffering?

                                From the LDS point of view, God WANTS us to learn how to choose the right thing in the midst of choice and opposition. This way, when temptations arise, we are then suited to resist those temptations. God doesn't want to remove the options/choices altogether. That isn't freedom. The fact that God wants us to face temptations is clear by how He has set up this world and how He allows the trials to continue.
                                If we generalize your own response to your question, it's basically this: God has a good reason for allowing sin and suffering, namely that there is some good that comes out of it that would not be obtainable any other or better way. And that is my response as well. We may disagree on the specifics of the resulting good, but since we agree on the big picture here and we have a lot of complex issues already in this thread, I'm suggesting we table this for now.

                                Are we responsible for the sins we commit, or are we simply victims of circumstance? Do we sin because we inherited a sinful nature that someone else chose for us?
                                I talked about where I think our desire to sin comes from in post #21, and I don't think you ever responded to that part of it.

                                Likewise, will God simply give the elect that he randomly chooses...
                                So predestination means God randomly chooses who the elect are? That's a straw man.

                                You seem to be saying above that if God simply takes away temptation, then we will be able to participate in paradise/heaven.
                                No. I am saying that the removal of temptation is required, but not sufficient, for humans to have perfect moral behavior.

                                Also, I reject your translation of Mat 13:41 saying that the angels will remove "causes of sin" in the sense that they will remove our freedom. The angels will remove false religion, false teachers, and false doctrine which cause people to stumble.
                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                You are reading the concept of God removing our options into the text, rather than deriving the doctrine from the text. Your interpretation is wrong.
                                7up, I don't know why you are making this association between removing causes of sin and removing freedom of choice, because I'm not. It's clear to me that sentient beings can choose to sin even when there are none of the "causes of sin" that are referred to in Matt 13:41. Satan and the fallen angels chose to sin when they were in heaven. The remaining angels could choose to lie, disobey God, etc. at any time, but they don't. In heaven, people could theoretically choose to lie, disobey God or sin in other ways, but they won't. The simple existence of wrong choices will be a "temptation" that they will be able to resist. They will not have unfulfilled needs, evil desires, Satan whispering in their ear, or other things that would make it harder for them to resist sin.

                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                Certainly the culture of sinfulness will be removed because the wicked will be removed, but Satan will be "bound" because there will be nobody left on Earth who follow his ways; not because God literally ties him up.
                                I quoted Rev 20:2-3 and Heb 2:14-15 in response to this earlier, which you didn't respond to. But this is a side issue anyway.

                                KD (in post #47): And if knowledge is not that necessary for morality, why was there the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and why did Solomon ask for wisdom in order to be able to judge Israel correctly ...I'm wondering a) why you are so insistent on defending the "people don't need perfect knowledge to be morally perfect" ...

                                7up: Please demonstrate from scripture that the wisdom that Solomon obtained made him a more "moral" person. Even Solomon realized that this was not the case. Furthermore, I will posit to you that the fallen angel Lucifer has far more knowledge than you , or I or Moses, or Solomon or anyone else living on this Earth at this time. This knowledge does not result in righteousness.
                                I never said that greater wisdom automatically results in greater morality. What I said is that wisdom and knowledge are necessary, but not sufficient, for morality. See post #21.

                                7up: Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

                                KD: Yes, that is our goal...

                                7up: A goal that you apparently think is never meant to be realized.
                                I think he's saying "be perfect" as in "don't sin," which is our goal and will be reached in heaven. I don't think he's saying, "Reach infinite perfection in your righteousness and be God just like your Father in heaven."

                                Faith without works is dead, and entrance into the kingdom of God is not a license to continue in sin.
                                Agreed.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X