Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 1:23 AM
384 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,040 Year: 16,646/21,208 Month: 2,535/3,593 Week: 2/646 Day: 2/78 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   Sin
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 106 of 153 (515799)
07-21-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Blue Jay
07-21-2009 8:03 AM


Re: What is sin?
Bluejay writes:

Hi, Woodsy.

Woodsy writes:

You might like to add one to your list: cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin. What's the score for that one? You might like to add one to your list: cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin. What's the score for that one?

I'm trying to determine what sin means to Christians.

OK, I'll leave you to it. However, I would think that "cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin" would be a prominent feature of what you want to discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2009 8:03 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2009 2:18 PM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 107 of 153 (515818)
07-21-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Woodsy
07-21-2009 9:37 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Woodsy.

Woodsy writes:

I would think that "cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin" would be a prominent feature of what you want to discuss.

Well, it certainly can be, and should be considered. I would prefer to establish first what Christians think. After we know the general consensus among Christians, then I suppose anyone who wants to take what's left of the thread to discuss the relationship between sin and objective evidence can do so.

But, as a partial answer to your question, I would lump the "cynical-priest" concept with the "created-by-God" concept into a category called "arbitrarily-defined sin," because the principle is the same: an entity in authority created rules, and defined "sin" as an infraction to those rules. Granted, it's not quite the same thing, but the general idea is close enough for me to associate them, I think.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Woodsy, posted 07-21-2009 9:37 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 108 of 153 (515822)
07-21-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ICANT
07-20-2009 10:01 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, ICANT.

To paraphrase you (correctly, I hope), you do not see sin as a definition that God made up, but as an inevitable part of our free-willed existence.

However, you do not agree with me that sin leads deterministically to damnation.

-----

If, as you say, failing to be "born again" results in damnation, then it seems to me that damnation is the default position for humans (i.e. you don't have to do anything to go to hell, but you do have to do something to prevent going to hell). So, humans, by default, go to hell, unless God saves them.

This confuses me bit. How does sin play in to your belief system? Is it simply an indication of your "spiritual purity" (or whatever you call it), such that, if someone sins, then you know that they were not truly "born again"?

-----

Running score, from my standpoint:

"Sin as a natural part of the universe": 2
"Sin as an artificial construct of God": 0


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2009 10:01 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2009 1:58 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 109 of 153 (515825)
07-21-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
07-20-2009 7:37 PM


Re: What is sin?
Straggler writes:


Rules? How were these rules originally decided upon, ascertained or othersie derived?


They weren't.

Straggler writes:


How can one know what the universe stipulates as "sinful" or "right"? Positive or negative? By how it feels to us?


You are asking me a question that I honestly feel no one on this Earth knows the answer to at this time.

I don't know how to determine what is sinful or proper. I do believe we have some guidelines in existence within the LDS Church that, if followed, may lead us to the next level in which we may learn what it takes to get to the next level. I don't even really know what the next level really is, or if I will even achieve it.

All I can do is follow the dictates of my own conscience, just like all (wo)men do. Whether we realize it or not, this is how all our moral decisions are made, even if we are reflecting on the writings of others (The Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran, Torah, Bhaga Vita, etc.)

Straggler writes:


But how do we decide what is a negative result and what is a positive result?


I think I addressed this in my statement above.

Straggler writes:


Is killing someone negative? I presume (and hope) that Mormon teachings say yes.


Killing a person is just as subject to circumstance, as any other moral decision is.

LDS Teachings would agree that the taking of life, without just cause. Just cause is usually defined as the killing of an individual who is intent on killing you or your family at the time. This obviously isn't all inclusive, including a good portion of the LDS memberships' cause for justification of killing a person including murderers.

This doesn't mean that there isn't an ultimate morality that exists as the epitome of human achievement.

Straggler writes:


But how on Earth can we know that the universe tells us this?


I don't know how we can KNOW, but if I figure it out, I will do my best to let you know

Straggler writes:


Or is there some less subjective means of determining what this universal and absolute morality tells us?


Hmmm. I really don't know if there is a less subjective way for us to determine this in our current state.

Sorry if I'm not really that much of a help, but you are really asking questions I don't have any true knowledge, evidence, or answers for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2009 7:37 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 110 of 153 (515840)
07-21-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
07-20-2009 7:37 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Straggler.

Straggler writes:

How were these rules originally decided upon, ascertained or othersie derived?

Why not just postulate the "rules" as the First Uncaused, rather than unparsimoniously postulate some unevidenced, other Uncaused that created them?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2009 7:37 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5595
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 111 of 153 (515877)
07-22-2009 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Blue Jay
07-21-2009 2:37 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi jay,

Bluejay writes:

To paraphrase you (correctly, I hope), you do not see sin as a definition that God made up, but as an inevitable part of our free-willed existence.

God wanted to have a creature who had the choice of loving Him and serving Him just because He is God.

The angels do what they were created to do. Even Satan.
The universe does what it was created to do.
The plants and the animals do what they were created to do.

The only creature that has a choice is mankind.

So the only way God could accomplish His purpose was to create evil, He did that by creating Satan so man could have a choice.

When God formed man from the dust of the ground He gave him the ability to choose. Just as God can make decisions and choose so can mankind.

He then created man and placed him in a perfect environment. Man was perfect in every way.

But God still wanted him to choose to love Him and serve Him and Fellowship with Him.

So He had placed a fruit bearing tree in the midst of the garden. You ask what kind of tree was it? It doesn't really matter, it could have been any kind.

God gave the man a choice. He could choose to continue as they were fellowshiping together or he could choose to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and die.

The woman that God made from one of the man's ribs was deceived by a talking snake as it is portrayed here at EvC. I grew up with Francis the talking mule and Mr. Ed so I never had a problem with a talking snake.

Satan talked to the woman through the snake or serpent and convinced her she would become like God knowing good and evil if she ate the fruit so she did.

She then took to the man and gave it to him and he made a decision to eat the fruit and die with the woman as she was going to die and he did not want to live alone.

Because this man chose to eat the fruit he was separated from God and brought upon everything the death penalty.

Every person that has ever been conceived is under the same penalty. They are separated from God when they reach the point the man did when he ate the fruit knowing good from evil.

Bluejay writes:

However, you do not agree with me that sin leads deterministically to damnation.

Your good deed or you bad deeds have nothing to do with whether you spend eternity in the lake of fire or not.

John 3:18 makes it very plain.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

He that believes is not condemned. Not because he has been good.

He that does not believe is condemned already.

So unless a person has been born again he is already condemned to spend eternity in the lake of fire.

Why? Because he has not believed. Not because he has been bad.

God so loved mankind that He came down to earth and took on the form of a man we call Jesus and was crucified on a cross so man who was doomed could choose to accept that love and the offer of a free full pardon and be restored to the fellowship that the first man had with God in the garden.

=BluejayThis confuses me bit. How does sin play in to your belief system? Is it simply an indication of your "spiritual purity" (or whatever you call it), such that, if someone sins, then you know that they were not truly "born again"?

If you will do a study on all the laws in the Bible you will find they have to do with two things.

Mankind's relationship to mankind.

Mankind's relationship to God.

When a person has been truly born again God expects them to grow. Just as we expect our children to grow. So He gave some rules to help us grow. Like:

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If a child of the King will do those things they will grow. Problems come when they don't do either.

I want to specifically address this statement. "your "spiritual purity""

The only thing pure about me is the Holy Spirit that has sealed my spirit until the day of redemption.

I am still a sinner and will be until I receive a new body that was promised.

I do not deserve the love that God has for me and when I get to heaven I won't deserve to be there. I will only be there because I believed God loved me and died on the cross in my place and one day I turned my future over to God and it is not in my hands.

Now just what part does sin play in my belief system?

When a person is born he/she is a sinner. After they are born again they are still a sinner. But if we grow we will become less of a sinner if we work at it. When we die we will still be a sinner.
When we get our new body we will sin no more, but not until then.

So can we tell if a person is really born again by whether they sin or not? No. We can inspect the fruit and make a judgment but it only has a 50% change of being correct.

I know about one person in the world and that is all. I know what I did and I know I received the Holy Spirit. I would like to know my wife of 52 years was born again so we could spend eternity together but I don't. Inspecting the fruit I would say yes but God judges by what mankind does when he meets Him.

Saul on the road to Damascus met God and his reaction was to say, Lord what would you have me to do? He then spent the rest of his life doing it.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2009 2:37 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2009 7:29 AM ICANT has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 112 of 153 (515891)
07-22-2009 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
07-22-2009 1:58 AM


Calling for Christians to Respond
Hi, ICANT.

Basically, it sounds like you do not believe sin to be an arbitrarily-defined concept, but something that is a real, natural part of reality.

We disagree on the nature of the afterlife, but we agree that sin has real consequences that are not determined by an arbitrary decree from God.

-----

Running score (including Mormons and Hill Billy, pending his approval):

"Sin as a natural part of the universe": 4
"Sin as an artificial construct of God": 0

Do any other Christians wish to comment?

If not, I guess the only question left to answer is whether or not the objective evidence supports our view that sin has real consequences. Good luck to us with that, I suppose .


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2009 1:58 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Stile, posted 07-22-2009 9:10 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2009 11:53 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 113 of 153 (515906)
07-22-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Blue Jay
07-22-2009 7:29 AM


Objective shmobjective
Bluejay writes:

Sin as a natural part of the universe: 4
Sin as an artificial construct of God: 0

Looks like most tend to lean away from arbitrary rules from God. That's a good thing as far as I can tell.

I guess the only question left to answer is whether or not the objective evidence supports our view that sin has real consequences. Good luck to us with that, I suppose

I'm afraid I can only agree with your sad plea for luck towards objective knowledge that seems impossible to obtain. It seems to be a question we won't have answered until we are no longer a part of this known existence, and perhaps not even then. It seems that everybody has this same problem. Although it's likely phrased in a way that doesn't mention "sin" for some people.

The fact is that no one has objective evidence for why they should be good people (or "avoid sin").

The good news is that if we assume sin is a real concept, then trying to avoid sin would definitely be a noble enterprise. Therefore, it can only be even more impressive when we do so without any known objective motivation. This means that any entity worth their salt cannot condemn anyone who honestly tries to "be good" when faced with no objective motivations. The "risk" is that an objective reason may not exist. But even that case may be irrelevent. I know I couldn't live with myself if I didn't strive for virtues that I am aware of, regardless of them having an objective source.

I do have a question for you, though.

How does the Morman religion view people like me? That is, let's say I live my life in such a way that attempts to discover objective moral truths in this reality and respect them as such. However, I don't believe in God or the Book of Morman, or perhaps even specifically denounce them. For the sake of arguement, let's define a hypothetical person as "someone who strives to avoid sin exactly as a Morman believer would", but doesn't actually believe in the Morman religion itself. What does the Morman religion believe will happen in the afterlife to such people?

Main stream Christianity utterly fails this test of "judging a group of people by how it treats its 'criminals'." I'm just wondering how the Morman religion deals with the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2009 7:29 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2009 5:05 PM Stile has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5595
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 114 of 153 (515947)
07-22-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Blue Jay
07-22-2009 7:29 AM


Re: Calling for Christians to Respond
Hi jay,

Bluejay writes:

Basically, it sounds like you do not believe sin to be an arbitrarily-defined concept, but something that is a real, natural part of reality.

I believe sinning is the natural state of mankind as they are totaly depraved in their natural state.

Mankind sin because they are a sinner by nature. Just as a duck swims because it is a swimmer by nature.

A dog barks because that is its nature.

A pig loves a mud puddle because that is his nature.

Mankind has to choose to do good.

Bluejay writes:

We disagree on the nature of the afterlife, but we agree that sin has real consequences that are not determined by an arbitrary decree from God.

Actually we disagree on how to get there from here.

If I understand what you are putting forth it boils down to be a system of getting better and better until you are fit to live with God.

I put forth that the only way to get from here to there is by God's grace + nothing.

I think Paul put it best when he wrote:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

It is a gift. You can't earn a gift. You may do things because you received the gift,

All you can do with a gift is accept it or reject it.

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You can't get the gift by works. For then it would be wages and you could brag what you have done.

Sin (bad things) does have real consequences.

One example: A man stops by the bar on the way home from work and has one too many drinks. He proceeds to get in his vehicle and head home, In the process he loses control of his vehicle. It slams into another vehicle and all together 4 vehicles are involved. He is killed leaving his family fatherless, one other father and a mother and two children are killed.
The father that was killed had three children at home who are now fatherless. The mother had two children at home who are now motherless. The two children will never have any descendents.

All because one man chose to drink and drive which is against government mandated laws.

Yes sin has real consequences.

Which we will probably disagree on what those consequences will be.

The consequences of personal sin will not be involved in determining where mankind spends eternity.

It will determine how many rewards a born again sinner gets in the afterlife.

Paul covered that also:

1 Corinthans 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Saved by God's Grace not man's works.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2009 7:29 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Phage0070, posted 07-23-2009 6:59 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 119 by Blue Jay, posted 07-23-2009 7:37 AM ICANT has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 115 of 153 (516015)
07-22-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Stile
07-22-2009 9:10 AM


Re: Objective shmobjective
Hi, Stile.

Stile writes:

For the sake of arguement, let's define a hypothetical person as "someone who strives to avoid sin exactly as a Morman believer would", but doesn't actually believe in the Morman religion itself. What does the Morman religion believe will happen in the afterlife to such people?

That's an interesting question.

Mormonism also holds that there are certain ordinances that need to be performed as part of the process of attaining salvation, so it would be difficult for someone who does not believe in God to achieve godhood. Unfortunately from your standpoint, this basically means you must believe in God: so I suppose you would consider Mormonism to have also failed this test.

However, we do have a compensatory mechanism: for those who weren't given a legitimate chance to accept God in this life, an opportunity to have the ordinances done in the next life will be provided.

So, there is still hope for you, from a Mormon standpoint.

Don't ask me to explain how ordinances fit into the objective, natural process of human progression towards godhood, though, because I will fail, and I hate being set up for failure.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Stile, posted 07-22-2009 9:10 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 07-22-2009 5:22 PM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 07-23-2009 8:26 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 116 of 153 (516019)
07-22-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Blue Jay
07-22-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Objective shmobjective
Mormonism also holds that there are certain ordinances that need to be performed as part of the process of attaining salvation, so it would be difficult for someone who does not believe in God to achieve godhood. Unfortunately from your standpoint, this basically means you must believe in God: so I suppose you would consider Mormonism to have also failed this test.

If sin is what keeps a person from attaining godhood, and not believing in god is a sin, then it would seem to argue against sin existing independently of god. It would bring it back to arbitrary rules put in place by a jealous god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2009 5:05 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 07-23-2009 7:32 AM Perdition has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 153 (516063)
07-23-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
07-22-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Calling for Christians to Respond
ICANT writes:

Yes sin has real consequences.


So then would you ignore "sins" that do not have real consequences? For instance: Suppose I act as equally moral as another Christian (perhaps even more so than some) and yet daily I think "Damn you God, damn you to hell!" and mean it.

What "real consequences" does this have? Who is harmed by it, or what negative physical repercussions can we expect to measure?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2009 11:53 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2009 6:29 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 118 of 153 (516065)
07-23-2009 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Perdition
07-22-2009 5:22 PM


Re: Objective shmobjective
Hi, Perdition.

Perdition writes:

If sin is what keeps a person from attaining godhood, and not believing in god is a sin, then it would seem to argue against sin existing independently of god. It would bring it back to arbitrary rules put in place by a jealous god.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. I have no way of rebutting this.

{AbE: It's often said, in Mormon circles, that the ordinances for everybody will be done during the 1000 years Phage mentioned earlier, so everybody will have a chance to accept or reject them. I'm not sure how canon this viewpoint is, though.)

Edited by Bluejay, : Addition


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 07-22-2009 5:22 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 119 of 153 (516066)
07-23-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
07-22-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Calling for Christians to Respond
Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

I put forth that the only way to get from here to there is by God's grace + nothing...

...The consequences of personal sin will not be involved in determining where mankind spends eternity.

It will determine how many rewards a born again sinner gets in the afterlife.

This is not all that different from Mormon beliefs in principle.

Mormons believe that all but the most horrific people will get to go to heaven. But, "good behavior" grants you perks and blessings beyond the mere baseline gift of going to heaven.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2009 11:53 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2009 6:40 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 120 of 153 (516070)
07-23-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Blue Jay
07-22-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Objective shmobjective
Bluejay writes:

Mormonism also holds that there are certain ordinances that need to be performed as part of the process of attaining salvation, so it would be difficult for someone who does not believe in God to achieve godhood. Unfortunately from your standpoint, this basically means you must believe in God: so I suppose you would consider Mormonism to have also failed this test.

Yes, someone who strictly believes this with no flexibility at all (as some Christians do) would fail this test. Well... fail in my eyes, anyway... for whatever that's worth in comparison to the judging God they believe in

However, it's not fair of me to lump "Christians" all together like that. Since there are certainly Christians who believe similar to what you said next:

for those who weren't given a legitimate chance to accept God in this life, an opportunity to have the ordinances done in the next life will be provided.

...Now a pass/fail of my test all depends on how strictly one defines "legitimate."

If "legitimate" is defined in some way to condemn those who are 'aware' of the Mormon religion and do not accept it... then I would consider it a fail.

However, if "legitimate" is defined in some way to make allowances for the fact that we 'cannot know' things in this world, and that there is no objective evidence to push us specifically in the Mormon direction... then this would give people like me a chance to accept the Mormon religion when presented with objective/undeniable evidence in the afterlife. This would then be a pass as far as my test goes.

It should be noted though, that a "pass" of my test includes me being accepted, where a "fail" includes me being excluded. This may very well put some sort of bias (obviously) on my test, in which case it's up to each person individually to decide if my test should actually be taken seriously or not.

Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, thanks for answering my questions. Respond if you'd like, but I certainly don't want you to feel like I'm asking you to display all your personal beliefs for everyone here. You've answered the questions I was asking already, so thanks for your time.

Edited by Stile, : mmmmm 'M' words... but 'Muslim' is not the same as 'Mormon'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2009 5:05 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 07-23-2009 2:14 PM Stile has responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017