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

  • #61
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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.
    I am sincerely glad that you care enough about correct theology to continue debating.

    But let's have a look at your tactics in this post.

    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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'd say he was a power-mad jerk. And I'd say that this argument is a gross misunderstanding of my theology.

    So how are you expecting me to be convinced by this, 7up? When people make arguments from moral outrage against Joseph Smith and Mormonism, particularly ones that are based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of LDS theology, are you even the least bit moved to question your faith? Of course not -- so why do you think this approach will convince me?

    Surely you're not expecting me to change my theology because it's misunderstood and unpopular?

    Are you going to be part of the solution, or part of the problem?
    I could ask you the same question. Everyone, whether they realize it or not, is either playing for Team Jesus or Team Evil. I believe your theology and your attitude towards the God who actually exists are wrong enough that you're not on Team Jesus. And that's why I'm on this forum.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      A couple concepts I wanted to revisit. A few posts ago, you wrote:-7up
      I really respect your dedication and commitment. I think you "got this". I'm backing away.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #63
        In case there's any confusion whatsoever about this -- I intended this comment toward Kind Debater.

        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I really respect your dedication and commitment. I think you "got this". I'm backing away.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I really respect your dedication and commitment. I think you "got this". I'm backing away.
          Thanks, CP!

          Comment


          • #65
            Please explain what is and is not fundamentally part of a person, because I don't know how to reconcile these statements:

            (in response to "So are your evil desires part of your fundamental nature?")

            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            (emphasis mine)

            The desires are a result of our nature. ... God has found a way to change the nature of who and what we are...
            (in response to "Is God changing you into someone who is no longer you as he sanctifies you?")

            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            In a sense yes, and in a sense no.
            with:

            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            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 seven7up View Post
            (emphasis mine)

            Like I said, with a being with an essence which is eternal and uncaused, that essence and its attributes are one and the same.
            So if you are going to be all, "The attributes/characteristics of a being ARE that being," then what's up with saying that we both are and are not the same person as we are sanctified, and that evil desires are a result of our nature and not innately us?

            And then there's this:

            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            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.
            Can you expand on what this means? Are you saying that in your theology, people are responsible for their own pre-existing nature? How can that be, when they couldn't have made themselves or changed themselves? To go back to the RPG example, if people can be described by character sheets, and character sheets "just exist" and can't be changed without God's involvement, how can a person be held responsible for what's on their character sheet? If someone "just exists" and they don't have humility (i.e. that which would allow them to be changed by God) as an attribute, how is that their fault?

            P.S. I am slowly getting around to answering all your recent posts; I have partial responses to some. I realized I never responded to post #46 either, so I will try to get to the parts of it that I think you'd want me to respond to.
            Last edited by Kind Debater; 02-13-2015, 07:58 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Kind Debater wrote - "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: ..."

              7up responded: 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?"

              -------------------------------------------------------------

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post

              I'd say he was a power-mad jerk. And I'd say that this argument is a gross misunderstanding of my theology.
              Again, let me just say that I live in Texas. I don't have LDS theology radio to listen to down here, so I listen to Christian radio. The sentiment you provided above about God creating people out of nothing for eternal punishment is a sentiment that I have heard expressed by the preachers who are well known on a national level. If you think my puppy example does not reflect your views or Christian views, then please explain exactly why the explanation is not representatives of your theology.

              7up wrote: Are you going to be part of the solution, or part of the problem?

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              I could ask you the same question. Everyone, whether they realize it or not, is either playing for Team Jesus or Team Evil. I believe your theology and your attitude towards the God who actually exists are wrong enough that you're not on Team Jesus. And that's why I'm on this forum.
              I think you are missing the point I am making by writing this question here. Let's look at a typical criticism of Christianity from an author/critic/skeptic:

              "If we conclude, then, that God would create Hell to deter human behavior which He disliked—knowing beforehand that the majority of humanity would, as a result, suffer eternal torture—then we would be forced to label this god as evil and sadistic also, because He likewise would have inhumanely tortured individuals in order to accomplish His goals" (Mills, 2006, p. 180).

              As I have explained previously, modern day Christianity's insistence on believing in the relationship between God and creation that you espouse (including the concept of Ex Nihilo creation) invites these kinds of criticisms, which are entirely valid.

              This is foolish, because creation Ex Nihilo is not even Biblical to begin with.


              -7up
              Last edited by seven7up; 02-15-2015, 03:18 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                So if you are going to be all, "The attributes/characteristics of a being ARE that being," then what's up with saying that we both are and are not the same person as we are sanctified, and that evil desires are a result of our nature and not innately us?
                Free will/agency is what we use to decide whether or not we will allow God to work in us in order to sanctify us. Our free/will agency is the source of the accumulated attributes/characteristics that make up our being.

                7up wrote: 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.

                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                Can you expand on what this means? Are you saying that in your theology, people are responsible for their own pre-existing nature?
                No need to say "pre-existing". We are responsible for our own nature. Do you disagree? If so, who do you think is responsible for our nature? In Ex Nihilo creation, GOD Himself is responsible for our nature, as He created beings out of nothing which were ignorant/deceivable/disobedient. We are what God created us to be in Ex Nihilo theology.

                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                How can that be, when they couldn't have made themselves or changed themselves?
                One's own personal free will is exactly what is needed in order to change oneself. While we can be influenced in our relationship with others, most significantly our relationship with God, ultimately the choice is ours.

                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                To go back to the RPG example, if people can be described by character sheets, and character sheets "just exist" and can't be changed without God's involvement, how can a person be held responsible for what's on their character sheet? If someone "just exists" and they don't have humility (i.e. that which would allow them to be changed by God) as an attribute, how is that their fault?
                The person's "character sheet" was developed by that individual (and how that individual related to others) by exercising agency from eternity past, just like God has. The difference is that God has always exercised agency perfectly and we have not.

                -7up

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                  Kind Debater wrote
                  Why don't you just learn to use the quote function properly, and you wouldn't have to do this?
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    7up, I believe you are contradicting yourself.

                    In your theology, are people uncaused or self-caused?

                    You have said our essence is uncaused:

                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    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 seven7up View Post
                    Like I said, with a being with an essence which is eternal and uncaused, that essence and its attributes are one and the same.
                    Now you seem to be saying we are entirely self-caused:

                    Originally posted by seven7up
                    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.
                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    Our free/will agency is the source of the accumulated attributes/characteristics that make up our being...The person's "character sheet" was developed by that individual (and how that individual related to others) by exercising agency from eternity past
                    If people are self-caused, how the heck can that even be possible? What comes first, agency or attributes? You were saying earlier that our choices reflect the essence of our being:

                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    The section I wanted you to focus on from Hausam is here:

                    "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."

                    So, this is what I illustrated earlier, namely, that what we choose to do externally is a reflection of who we are internally. If this were not the case, then our "choices" may as well be considered completely random.
                    And you seemed to say our preferences, at least, are pre-existing attributes:

                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    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.
                    And then there's your statements that "The attributes/characteristics of a being ARE that being" and "with a being with an essence which is eternal and uncaused, that essence and its attributes are one and the same."

                    Now you're saying that our choices are the source of our attributes.

                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    Our free/will agency is the source of the accumulated attributes/characteristics that make up our being...The person's "character sheet" was developed by that individual (and how that individual related to others) by exercising agency from eternity past
                    How can that even work? You're saying that our choices shaped our attributes...but also that choices reflect the essence of who we are. In fact, going off of what you said here:

                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    So, this is what I illustrated earlier, namely, that what we choose to do externally is a reflection of who we are internally. If this were not the case, then our "choices" may as well be considered completely random.
                    it sounds like if people determined their attributes by making choices from eternity past, those initial choices would be completely random, because they would have no attributes to begin with. And according to you, randomly made choices are not free will choices.

                    Perhaps you will say that people started with pre-existing preferences and made choices according to those preferences that determined their attributes. But then I would refer you to your own argument:

                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    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...



                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    Free will/agency is what we use to decide whether or not we will allow God to work in us in order to sanctify us.
                    I thought you said it was humility that decided that.

                    We are responsible for our own nature. Do you disagree? If so, who do you think is responsible for our nature?
                    We are responsible for part and God is responsible for part. Roughly speaking, we are responsible for our sinfulness and God is responsible for what is good in us.

                    One's own personal free will is exactly what is needed in order to change oneself. While we can be influenced in our relationship with others, most significantly our relationship with God, ultimately the choice is ours.
                    Are you saying you can improve yourself without God's help?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      If you think my puppy example does not reflect your views or Christian views, then please explain exactly why the explanation is not representatives of your theology.
                      Very well...

                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      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. ... The other puppy was thrown in a cage of torture.
                      This is the equivalent of God creating someone and immediately throwing them into hell for no discernible reason, other than a sadistic display of power. That is not what God does. Anyone who is in hell is being punished fairly for wrong things they have chosen to do. I realize you don't think that my theology allows for free will, but I do.

                      If you're going to bring up the eternal destiny of infants again, the bottom line is I don't know for sure what happens to all infants or any particular infant who dies, but I know that God does what is right. I personally believe that at least some infants end up in heaven. If there are infants/small children who end up in hell, I believe that would only be because they made a choice to do evil and/or reject God. You can argue over whether or not that's possible, but I will simply say that God does what is right. If they hadn't done something that deserved punishment, they wouldn't be punished, because God is morally perfect and not sadistic. If it's not at all possible for infants to do wrong, then there are no infants in hell. If you want to hold that it's not possible for children under a certain age to sin, I'm fine with that and I'm not going to argue with you. I just personally can't say that because the Biblical evidence is not clear.

                      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?"
                      God says that he is worthy of worship because he is holy (morally perfect) as well as omnipotent. This analogy pictures a sadistic and omnipotent God saying he deserves worship because he is powerful.

                      "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?"
                      Surely you are familiar with Rom 5:6-8 and the parable and lesson in Luke 7:36-50. Our love and gratitude to God is based on his first loving us and forgiving us when a) we didn't deserve his love or forgiveness and b) making forgiveness possible cost him dearly.

                      The analogy pictures God saying, "Do you love me since I arbitrarily chose to be kind and not sadistic to you?" Again, God is never sadistic and his choices are not arbitrary (even the Calvinists I know agree that God did not arbitrarily choose the elect).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        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?
                        Yes, I follow your reasoning here, but...

                        KD: Then there are the numerous people in the Bible who saw direct evidence of God and then sinned/denied him.

                        7up: 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.
                        The people I referred to include people like Peter, who was (presumably) a devout Jew -- i.e. who started out by faith, fulfilling your criteria -- who then became Jesus' disciple and saw numerous miracles, yet later denied him out of fear. He also sinned even after Christ's resurrection and ascension, again out of fear (Gal 2:11-14). Is Peter a son of perdition?

                        Zechariah was "righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord." (Luke 1:6) As a devout Jew and as a priest, he would have known about the story of Abraham and Sarah and Isaac's miraculous conception, yet when an angel appeared to him to tell him of John the Baptist's birth, he disbelieved. Is he a son of perdition?

                        John saw an extended vision of heaven and other things, and yet near the end, he had to be reminded not to worship an angel (Rev 19:9-10).

                        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.
                        I think we need to repent of our sins as soon as we become aware of them. I think there are sins that we aren't aware of, some of which we realize as we mature in Christ and some of which we may not realize until the afterlife.

                        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.
                        I don't know where you got this from. The people who end up in heaven are those who are willing to submit to God. And I don't think God literally recreates our spirits, but removes the effects of the fall. Those are two different things.

                        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.
                        So what's the LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 36:27?


                        And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezek 36:27)


                        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?
                        No, I'm not saying that. Adam and Eve started with all of their needs met, and they sinned. I am saying that when people have unfulfilled needs, they are tempted to sin in order to meet their needs in some fashion. Unmet needs are one of many causes of temptation, which is why I said, "...they won't have anything tempting them to, like dissatisfaction or an unfulfilled need."

                        Looks like you are a closet Calvinist after all.
                        I agree with Calvinists on some things but not all.

                        KD: And God wanted to prove his love for us.

                        7up: 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?
                        You'll need to find an actual Calvinist to use your anti-Calvinism arguments on.

                        Jesus' death had the potential to save everyone, and as you pointed out God does want everyone to be saved, so yes, God wanted to prove his love for everyone.

                        I don't agree with Calvinists that salvation is entirely due to God's choosing people. I think God has to take the first step in enabling people to come to him, but the process is an intricate intertwining of God working in a person's life and the person choosing to respond or 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.
                        I suspect God works like that in a lot of cases, e.g. giving the unrepentant plenty of chances to repent, but I don't know that he does that in all cases. At any rate, I don't think he condemns or punishes anyone if they haven't actually done something wrong, i.e. I don't think he punishes people for an unrealized potential to sin.

                        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.
                        I said:

                        Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                        I don't know that all people who die as infants go to heaven. It's possible but I am not certain.
                        And I expanded on that in post #70.

                        What I am implying by my statement is that I reject the concept known as "total depravity" of the entire human race.
                        What is your definition of "total depravity"?

                        KD: 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.

                        7up: 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."
                        I thought we were talking about sanctification, not the atonement. But I suppose that's a discussion for another time.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          7up, I believe you are contradicting yourself.

                          In your theology, are people uncaused or self-caused? ...If people are self-caused, how the heck can that even be possible? What comes first, agency or attributes? ...

                          "The attributes/characteristics of a being ARE that being" and "with a being with an essence which is eternal and uncaused, that essence and its attributes are one and the same."

                          Now you're saying that our choices are the source of our attributes.
                          I am not sure we have defined a difference between uncaused or self-caused, if there is one. Our current attributes/characteristics are self-caused in the sense that who and what we are now are a result of our we have used our free will in relation to others from past infinity. In "eternity past", I don't think you can say "what comes first".

                          The contrast between my view and your view is really quite simple, and it isn't necessary to fully comprehend "eternity past".

                          Your view ("classic theism") is that God is a single omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient substance which is the only single entity that has existed from eternity past. This omnipresent spirit substance created every other thing (and every other creature) entirely out of God's own creative imagination. In this view, while it is logically possible to create morally infallible creatures with free will, classic theists do not have a very good reason for explaining why God did not create morally superior beings. God simply created beings who were disobedient/ignorant/proud/easily deceived. Not only that, but after the fall, many Christians believe that every spirit that God creates out of nothing at the moment of conception is created to be totally "depraved" and incapable of doing anything good whatsoever.

                          My view (in LDS theology and what has been described by Old Testament scholar Jon Levenson and the other non-LDS scholars that we have discussed) is that although God has existed from eternity past, there are also other non-divine realities that existed in eternity past. There is no point in going into what came first, the chicken or the egg, in infinite past. The point is that God cannot create any kind of being out of nothing, but instead creates from existing entities with pre-existing characteristics/attributes which would be an obvious influence on how their free-agency is expressed.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          You have said our essence is uncaused:
                          Yes; there is some internal aspect of our being, who and what we are, that has always existed. The attributes/characteristics of our being is reflected in how we exercise our free will/agency. The same is true for God.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Now you seem to be saying we are entirely self-caused:
                          I don't think anyone can be "entirely self caused". That would only be possible if one being existed without any relation whatsoever to any other beings; an entirely isolated entity. I don't think that exists.

                          7up: We are responsible for our own nature. Do you disagree? If so, who do you think is responsible for our nature?

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          We are responsible for part and God is responsible for part. Roughly speaking, we are responsible for our sinfulness and God is responsible for what is good in us.
                          If that is true, then God could save every single one of his creations, without exception. This goes to the kind of "total depravity" view that I referenced above. If every person who ever existed was created with the inability to do any good without God, then who's fault is it? That sounds like a design flaw which points to a poor Creator rather than trying to blame the poor creature who was destined to fail. Then God picks and chooses who to save "on a whim" despite their created nature, and leaves the rest to their predetermined eternal destruction. Is God purposefully creating beings in opposition to Himself so that He can contend with them, thus forcing an unnecessary conflict?

                          Certainly you can understand why people who analyze this kind of theological framework would have some objections?

                          In LDS theology, it is a necessary conflict, because the non-divine entities are eternal as well.

                          7up wrote: Free will/agency is what we use to decide whether or not we will allow God to work in us in order to sanctify us.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          I thought you said it was humility that decided that.
                          And it can be argued that being humble is a choice. Again, you can argue chicken before the egg or egg before the chicken all you want. If you understand that 1) God is eternal 2) God has free will, then certainly you can apply these same principles to each and every one of us.

                          7up: One's own personal free will is exactly what is needed in order to change oneself. While we can be influenced in our relationship with others, most significantly our relationship with God, ultimately the choice is ours.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Are you saying you can improve yourself without God's help?
                          No. We would not even have an opportunity to progress if God had not placed us into a position to make meaningful choices. Then God guides us to improve if we are willing.

                          Are you arguing that God will save people against their will?

                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            7up wrote: 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. ... The other puppy was thrown in a cage of torture.

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            This is the equivalent of God creating someone and immediately throwing them into hell for no discernible reason, other than a sadistic display of power. That is not what God does. Anyone who is in hell is being punished fairly for wrong things they have chosen to do. I realize you don't think that my theology allows for free will, but I do.
                            Let's say that God throws the puppy in the cage of torture because the puppy poops on the carpet, which the puppy (by its very nature) is going to do. In fact, both puppies were pooping on the carpet, but one gets the cage and the other doesn't.

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            If you're going to bring up the eternal destiny of infants again, the bottom line is I don't know for sure what happens to all infants or any particular infant who dies, but I know that God does what is right. I personally believe that at least some infants end up in heaven. If there are infants/small children who end up in hell, I believe that would only be because they made a choice to do evil and/or reject God. You can argue over whether or not that's possible, but I will simply say that God does what is right. If they hadn't done something that deserved punishment, they wouldn't be punished, because God is morally perfect and not sadistic. If it's not at all possible for infants to do wrong, then there are no infants in hell. If you want to hold that it's not possible for children under a certain age to sin, I'm fine with that and I'm not going to argue with you. I just personally can't say that because the Biblical evidence is not clear.
                            Did "infants" going to Heaven accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior? Please explain, because my understanding is that only those who accept the atonement of Jesus Christ can be saved. (Perhaps that should go in another thread. It is a different topic.)

                            7up wrote: 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?"

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            God says that he is worthy of worship because he is holy (morally perfect) as well as omnipotent. This analogy pictures a sadistic and omnipotent God saying he deserves worship because he is powerful.
                            Yes, God IS worthy of worship because of moral perfection, etc. However, the point being made here is that the characteristics that you assign to God do not match up with your theology, nor does your theology explain the reality in which we currently live, which has plenty of evil and suffering.

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            Surely you are familiar with Rom 5:6-8 and the parable and lesson in Luke 7:36-50. Our love and gratitude to God is based on his first loving us and forgiving us when a) we didn't deserve his love or forgiveness and b) making forgiveness possible cost him dearly.
                            Yes, I am familiar with those passages. It is important that you pointed out that God makes the forgiveness possible. And what EXACTLY determines who receives the forgiveness, and who does not?

                            Classic Christian theology says that God predestined/foreordained/chose which individuals He would save and which ones God would not save and this decision was made before God even created any of those individuals ex nihilo. On what criteria was this decision made if NOBODY deserves it in the first place?

                            LDS theology provides an entirely different perspective. Let's take this famous passage of Jeremiah 1:5

                            "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified (quadash) thee, and I ordained (nathan) thee a prophet unto the nations."

                            Quadash: to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, set apart
                            Nathan: to ordain, appoint, make

                            So, in the classic theism view, you have to interpret this as meaning that God is ordaining, preparing, appointing a person who does not yet actually exist. God just knows what the person is going to do ahead of time.

                            In the LDS view, God knows the individual spirit by means of personal interaction prior to mortality. God knows who that being is, based on the person's characteristics and/or the way that the person exercises his/her free will. It is based on that criteria that God places the individual into the mission for which he/she is intended.

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            The analogy (of the puppies) pictures God saying, "Do you love me since I arbitrarily chose to be kind and not sadistic to you?"
                            Both puppies deserved the torture cage in my analogy because both pooped on the carpet. God chose to save one and not the other.

                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            Again, God is never sadistic and his choices are not arbitrary (even the Calvinists I know agree that God did not arbitrarily choose the elect).
                            Then they don't understand Calvinism, and they probably shouldn't call themselves Calvinists. But again, Calvinism is the LOGICAL conclusion to Ex Nihilo creation, so I can understand the confusion they are facing. If it is not arbitrary, then on what basis was the decision made?

                            All of those predestination/foreordination passages take an entirely different meaning from the LDS perspective, as you can see. But keep in mind that Mormons believe that those who are chosen to be placed in positions whereby they can accept/preach the gospel are still in dire need of the atonement of Christ. They are willing to recognize that they need that grace/forgiveness.

                            -7up

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              7up: 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
                              Yes, I follow your reasoning here,...
                              Good, because this point is critical. The teaching is actually found in the Book of Mormon, Alma 32

                              17 There are many who do say: If you will show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. 18 Now I ask, is this faith? I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knows a thing he has no cause to believe, for he knows it. 19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knows the will of God and does it not, than he that only believes, or only has cause to believe, and falls into transgression? 20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work. 21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true. 22 And now, I say unto you, and I would that you remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desires, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              The people I referred to include people like Peter, who was (presumably) a devout Jew -- i.e. who started out by faith, fulfilling your criteria -- who then became Jesus' disciple and saw numerous miracles, yet later denied him out of fear. He also sinned even after Christ's resurrection and ascension, again out of fear (Gal 2:11-14). Is Peter a son of perdition?
                              No, he is not. He did not face the full presence and reality of God in these instances. Sons of perdition reject God when facing the full reality of God's existence. Granted, Peter by all rights should face a higher standard, after seeing the miracles, but consider what Peter was facing. Most people are not faced with a horrible and agonizing death for believing in Jesus Christ. That is a HUGE test, and I suspect that most people would not pass that test. Especially since He had not yet had the benefit of a long walk with Christ including the ministry of the Holy Spirit. If tradition is correct, then Peter actually was martyred in a horrible way for his faith in Christ.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              Zechariah was "righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord." (Luke 1:6) As a devout Jew and as a priest, he would have known about the story of Abraham and Sarah and Isaac's miraculous conception, yet when an angel appeared to him to tell him of John the Baptist's birth, he disbelieved. Is he a son of perdition?
                              Of course not, see above. As far as I know, he did not reject the atonement of Christ after having had the Holy Spirit confirm that truth without a shadow of a doubt. That is what it would take to be a son of perdition.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              I think we need to repent of our sins as soon as we become aware of them. I think there are sins that we aren't aware of, some of which we realize as we mature in Christ and some of which we may not realize until the afterlife.?
                              I don't disagree with you there.

                              The problem is when people think that God is going to save us in our sins, rather saving us from our sins. I think some people believe that God is going to magically transform sinners into saints at the Second Coming, so they don't think that they need to repent now.


                              7up wrote: 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.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              I don't know where you got this from. The people who end up in heaven are those who are willing to submit to God. And I don't think God literally recreates our spirits, but removes the effects of the fall. Those are two different things.
                              Please explain those two different things, if you don't mind.

                              7up: 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.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              So what's the LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 36:27?

                              And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezek 36:27)


                              Well, what does it mean by "cause" is it:
                              1. Cause: overpower, force, make to act despite one’s own intentions, override free will.
                              2. Cause: give one the motive, teaching, training, understanding

                              One analogy that gets thrown around is gasoline. Does it make cars go? It is a cause or the source of a power which propels the car forward, but there is more to it than that. Someone decides to pump it into the car, get in and put the car in gear, but on the other hand the gasoline enables the car to run and the car ain't goin nowhere without it.

                              7up: 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?

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              No, I'm not saying that. Adam and Eve started with all of their needs met, and they sinned. I am saying that when people have unfulfilled needs, they are tempted to sin in order to meet their needs in some fashion. Unmet needs are one of many causes of temptation, which is why I said, "...they won't have anything tempting them to, like dissatisfaction or an unfulfilled need."
                              My point was that even if all needs, according to you, are being met (like Adam and Eve), then people are still tempted and will still sin.

                              7up: Looks like you are a closet Calvinist after all.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              I agree with Calvinists on some things but not all.
                              Perhaps you agree with the premise of many theological stances, as long as you don't take it to its logical conclusion.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              You'll need to find an actual Calvinist to use your anti-Calvinism arguments on.
                              Or we will have to have you explain what you agree with, when it comes to Calvinism, as you just said you agree with some things. And perhaps you can explain you do or don't agree with certain things.

                              7up: 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,...

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              Jesus' death had the potential to save everyone, and as you pointed out God does want everyone to be saved, so yes, God wanted to prove his love for everyone.

                              I don't agree with Calvinists that salvation is entirely due to God's choosing people. I think God has to take the first step in enabling people to come to him, but the process is an intricate intertwining of God working in a person's life and the person choosing to respond or not.
                              Does God take that "first step in enabling people to come unto him" with everyone?

                              7up wrote: 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.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              I suspect God works like that in a lot of cases, e.g. giving the unrepentant plenty of chances to repent, but I don't know that he does that in all cases.
                              Do you believe that everyone must believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved? If so, what if they never heard the gospel?

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              At any rate, I don't think he condemns or punishes anyone if they haven't actually done something wrong, i.e. I don't think he punishes people for an unrealized potential to sin. ... I don't know that all people who die as infants go to heaven. It's possible but I am not certain.
                              It sounds like you are leaning towards "infants who die go to heaven." That's a good start, I can't think of anything more arbitrary than God deciding between which infants go to heaven and which infants go to hell.

                              But then we get into the very difficult topic of examples of parents who kill their children so they won't grow up, won't sin and won't go to hell. That crazy, crazy notion has some logic behind it, does it not?

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              What is your definition of "total depravity"?
                              I don't believe in total depravity. I have already explained my position, that any imperfect spirit who enters mortality and faced with moral choices will sin.

                              So, maybe you can give me YOUR definition.

                              7up wrote: 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."

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              I thought we were talking about sanctification, not the atonement.
                              They are related.

                              -7up

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                This is a response to post #45 and #46.

                                7up: Plantinga and William Lane Craig discuss the idea of "possible worlds" and "feasible worlds". This is an important part of the "free will defense" for Christian theologians. In particular, there is a part of the discussion where he discusses an individual who would do in world 2 (W2) and world 3 (W3). This is the part that you seem to agree with. He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?

                                KD: I'm thinking probably yes, but it's not guaranteed he would, because it's not guaranteed he would have exactly the same thoughts every time.

                                7up: Yes, but WHY? The greatest minds in Christian theology on this issue take the position that the choice is made based on the attributes of that individual, therefore, the individual will make the same choice if in the exact same situation.
                                You truncated my answer when you responded, so I put my full answer back in above. I said probably yes but not necessarily.

                                In the cases in which the result would be the same, it would be the same because the same person -- that is, the person at the same age and with the same life experiences, etc. (because everything in the scenario is supposed to be identical) -- is in the same situation, environment, etc. In other words, there is nothing that is different between the two situations that would cause the outcome to be different. I am assuming that "exact same situation" also covers the actions of God, Satan, etc. so that the person would not be tempted by Satan or influenced by the Holy Spirit more or less in one case than the other. The only way in which the outcome could be different, that I could think of, would be that the person's train of thought was different -- because this is something that occurs after the person is placed in the situation -- but in most cases I think that even different trains of thought would likely lead to the same outcome.

                                In other words, the attributes of the individual are only ONE factor in the decision. If they weren't, you wouldn't need to specify that the individual was in the exact same situation.

                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                Originally posted by Kind Debater
                                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.
                                How does this fit with your theology of the Godhead? Because this is what you said in your OP of the Mormon Trinity thread:

                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                While I have McConkie's quotes open from the thread, let me pull a few more from him, because he supposedly represents "hard line" Mormonism.

                                "Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons–... These three are one — one God if you will – in purposes, in powers, and in perfections."

                                "Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are 'one God'"


                                He also says,

                                "First, be it remembered that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son, simply because it doesn’t make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance."

                                But keep in mind that he says "would be... in the same circumstance". However, they are not technically in the same circumstance. Members of the Godhead have different "roles". For example, God the Father is the Father of my spirit, and Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of my sins.

                                ...

                                Mormons do not believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being nor do we believe that they are the same substance. We instead would say that Jesus Christ is the image of the same Being/Substance.
                                Do God the Father and Jesus differ in any of their attributes/characteristics? If yes, which ones? If no, then why are they not the same being, since you just said that the attributes of a being and the being itself are not two different things, but the same thing?

                                KD: 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.

                                7up: 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?
                                No, I am saying that from what you've said about free will, it logically follows that neither you nor God have free will.

                                Not only are you coming up with entirely invented concepts...
                                But entirely invented concepts are entirely fun.

                                The "loose" definition is just a way for you to ignore and bury the logical implications of Ex Nihilo creation theology.
                                But I don't agree with what you think are the logical implications. I think you have a mental block that is keeping you from understanding how you can have free will when God created you. If you would just try to make a paradigm shift and understand what my view is...but I fear you are too busy trying to make sure I understand yours, when I'm pretty sure I do.

                                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.
                                If that's the case, then every detail of what is on your character sheet determines everything you will ever do. You can't say, "Character sheets predetermine everything a person will do, unless they were created in a special way." If -- if -- our personality/soul determines everything we do, then hard determinism is true, and it is just as true in your theology as mine.

                                KD: 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.

                                7up: 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.
                                We agreed that people can change, for the better or for the worse. So I'm saying that God created people who made decisions that changed them for the worse. And before you respond to that with "But if God created them, their decisions to become worse were determined by him," just stop for a minute, okay? Your whole objection is based on your thinking that ex nihilo leads to hard determinism and no free will. But if that's not the case, then God could have created people who, through free will decisions, ended up making themselves worse than what they started as. That's what I'm saying. Now if you're going to continue with your "no free will in ex nihilo" argument, at least realize that that is the core issue and not "But God's responsible for all the evil in the world," because that is ONLY true IF your "ex nihilo -> no free will" belief is true. You can argue for the next ten years about how awful it is that God created people that he knows will end up in hell and how God is responsible for all the evil in the world and how many terrible moral problems there are in my theology and it won't faze me a bit, because I remain unconvinced that ENCT automatically means hard determinism and no free will. Okay?

                                KD: 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.

                                7up: So, the only decision you ever truly make ... is the last decision you ever make?
                                No, you don't understand. There are lots and lots of events in our lives. Your eating Cocoa Puffs in the morning is an event. My stopping in the middle of writing this post to take my turn in Star Realms is an event. Those choices affect things in the future, but they are events in and of themselves.

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

                                You have stated that God PURPOSEFULLY created us to be fallible.
                                That is not exactly what I think. That makes it sound like God created fallible people because he wanted evil to occur, which is not the case. I think God created fallible people because 1) from a philosophical standpoint, that may have been his only option and 2) he was willing and able to deal with the results of our being fallible. This is what I said:

                                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                                I've been arguing that in order to be morally perfect in this world, one would need at least some divine attributes, and that you can't have some divine attributes without having all of them. I.e. the only options are God creating another god or God creating a non-divine being which is necessarily morally fallible. Which is why only God is perfectly good.

                                Comment

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