Sin

I know you're responding to Stile, but I thought of another possibility along these lines. Rather than an innate part of intelligence, it could be an innate part of free will. One of the big doctrines in most Monotheologies is Free Will. If there really are things we need to do in order to make it into whatever Paradise exists, and God wants us to be more than automatons, then we must have the ability to do things contrary to that goal. God would then, perhaps, feel the need to try and convince us to do the right thing because he doesn't want to force us to do so. His way of convincing, whether the most effective or not, is to threaten us.

So the concept is that God is willing to lie and misrepresent the truth in order to get a point across, or to protect us from something.As you said, there are some problems with this. For one thing it throws everything God says into question: Do we really get an afterlife which is pretty sweet no matter what, or he just saying that to protect us from the concept of death being the end? Does God really love us infinitely or is he sort of ambivalent toward most people, but figures everyone needs to feel special?I'm going to stop here in that train of thought, because I am sure you can see where it goes. I would just like to point out how I see our exchange has gone so we can get some perspective:

quote:

---

Me: The two concepts are similar because of these similarities.

​

You: No, they are totally different ideas, Mormons don't believe that.

​

Me: I really think they do, these verses say they do.

​

You: You uneducated cur, you don't understand what they say! Their version is quite nice.

​

Me: I'm not talking about the nice part, I am talking about the part I quoted. It says it is very not-nice right here.

​

You: It might not be nice, but it does not specifically say who put them there, or who is doing the not-nice stuff.

​

Me: It totally does, it says it is God's not nice stuff very clearly.

​

You: Well, I heard somewhere that he was probably lying. But it was totally for our own good of course, and I could be wrong about the lying. But I'm not wrong about it being for our own good, that I am totally certain of.

​

Me: Look, I don't think calling him a liar helps a lot.

---

Now I can only speculate on the future of this exchange, but you seem to have locked yourself into an untenable position. You cannot claim "Well *I* believe differently, I am special!" because your claim is about what Mormons believe, not some particular brand of whatever you happen to have in your head.You cannot really claim that the interpretation is wrong because the text is fairly unambiguous, which is frankly surprising for a religious text. We already explored that route but unfortunately I can actually read, and besides the Mormons already accept the passage anyways.You cannot really claim that the passage is a lie (although you have tested the waters), because it leaves it open for anything else to be a lie as well. It also brings up the question as to how one could tell it is a lie in the first place, and why we don't just use this alternate source of information exclusively rather than reading a fiction.Honestly, I don't know what else you can try other than to accuse me of unforgivable rudeness and being generally impossible to deal with. Then you can refuse to respond and make it out to be my fault.But hey, I am open to new ideas, so lets hear them.

Your effort is appreciated. I'm sorry, I thought I did.
You wrote: Sin defined as the impediment to your personal goals seems odd to me.
What if my personal goals are to cause harm to others? Would it remove the sinful nature cause they are my goals?Why is the correct answer to "what is 2+2" 4? Is it cause someone said so? Is it cause that would help you achieve your goals?
Of course not. The equation is an observation of our reality. The numbers are merely our way of measuring that reality in a common form. We could choose instead to name 2 "flubberjub". The number of objects would remain the same. Only the words would be different.
2+2=4 cause it does.
One of the difficulties with language is varied definitions.
Definitions that define, not our reality, but our observations and interpretations of that reality.Sin is a byproduct of choice. It would not exist without the freedom to choose it. Not really, besides that was not contained in your list of options. Nope.
Without the freedom to choose it sin would not exist. There for it is not a part of the natural universe. It is a man made addition.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Its not even just threatening us, its threatening some of us. Many people go there entire lives without hearing about God. So in reality, it cant be the most effective means to get people to do what is right. Now, had he revealed himself to all people, the threats my have merits as being the most effective way to get people to do what is right.

Read the whole thread. I brought up this very question and Bluejay explained that it's not personal goals, it is the "goal" of Godhood that sin keeps you from. You can choose not to pursue this goal, and that's your choice, but you then won't attain the full glory that is open to you.

No one really decides at all, nor is it obvious. In fact, not even God decides what is or isn't, as these detrimental choices pre-existed even Him.Take for instance this scenario:Bob and Jane are driving on the freeway. Bob decides to drive really fast, loses control of the vehicle, and both Bob and Jane die.Now, we can take several views on what happened here, a few of which would be:
A) The end result of Bob and Jane dying was God's will.B) Bob's choice in driving really fast set up conditions in which the probability of his, and Jane's demise dramatically increased. These natural consequences might have been avoided if Bob had decided to obey traffic laws. God also had nothing to do with any of these consequences.C) Bob didn't really have control over his impulse to drive fast, as he was bound by the chemistry within his own body to react that exact way, in that exact scenario.According to Mormon Doctrine, B is what happened. In fact, according to other life philosophies B is what happens.I chose this scenario because it most obviously illustrates how morality is viewed from LDS (Mormon) eyes. It's not about what you, I, or God determines what is beneficial or detrimental, because no party actually determines what is, or is not. It simply is. If you do something to fry your brain (severe drug abuse) how intellectually capable are you going to be in learning advanced physics, should you live forever?The way I like to put it is this:
"Stop worrying so much about what, or if, there is a list in the sky of what you should or shouldn't do. Help others reach happiness, and you yourself will reach happpiness. If Happiness to you is hurting others, well, I got news for you bub... you're not going to make it far" Simple really. We won't ever really know, without experience. I would imagine that most of us do not really know how deeply the consequences of our actions can go.The LDS (Mormon) perspective is that of a never ending one. If you continue committing actions that are counter-productive toward intellectual, and community progression, then given eternity, you will self destruct. No one does, not even God. It is what it is. You either reach it, or you don't. All we can do is our best to reach it by following the simple rules handed down to us, such as loving one another, and honoring our commitments made to one another. Nothing is DEEMED sinful by anyone. There are guidelines to avoid negative results, but there are no real commands made from on high.Just to help a little. Like I said earlier. It's all about what your tendencies would cause to happen over an infinite amount of time.

Sorry Phage, but the verses you quote are an obvious detraction from what is being described.It's the same thing that occurs in a sentence like this:
"John is living in Maryland, which means he has to pay all his states taxes to Maryland. John must also abide by the laws of Maryland. John was born in Massachusetts but moved to Maryland when he was 12 with his parents."The last sentence doesn't really describe John's current state, but his past state. This is the same for verses 105 and 106. They are actually describing that the same people who will be in spirit prison for a thousand years, will be in the Telestial Kingdom. Phage, this is known as a Strawman argument. Do you know what those are? If so, then what is your excuse for using one?

Whew! It's a good thing you said that, else I would have fallen asleep in the middle of reading your reply This example I provided was more a demonstration that people who have no understanding of LDS Doctrine typically revert to a search engine for a quick answer. The problem is, rather than actually reading and comprehending what is being said in the scriptures, they simply cherry pick the verses that describe Spirit Prison, and act as though it is one of the Kingdoms of Glory.These sort of things cannot be allowed to slide in intellectual discussion. Exactly, which is what I have explained to Phage. It is also why I was trying to emphasize to Phage that he may was misinformed in what those two verses actually were in light of the surrounding text. ROFL. That's a good one.Sidenote: I remember reading in a newspaper article a comment on one of the earlier big LDS movies (can't remember the names, but the ones with the missionary guy who gets ditched by his wife because she decides to leave the church). Anyway, the article said that the way members were portrayed made a Star Trek convention look about as nerdy as Mr T.Take care.

Right! They are the same people, but two different places. The hell where they get burned is not the Telestial Kingdom, but rather a "hell" all to its own. Thus, your argument that the Telestial Kingdom is actually quite nice is irrelevant as it isn't where they are at that particular time. I was talking about the 1000 years of burning godly vengeance they were experiencing. No, it isn't. It seemed you were claiming that the hell talked about in verses 105-106 was the same as in verse 84, and that you were conflating it with the Telestial Kingdom. In that case the burning would continue for eternity, as they don't really get to leave. I don't agree; most Mormons seem to consider it a separate location after which they move on. This is irrelevant to the point in any case, which is that the Mormon god burns people in a hell just like the mainstream Christian god, just not for as long.

I pretty much understood the references, although I disagree that verse 84 refers to the Telestial Kingdom. I rather think it fits better referring to the prison, if only to keep terminology consistent.In any case, the pertinent thing to take away is that the Mormon god is exacting vengeance through fire on people, specifically and intentionally, because they did not do something he wanted them to do.

So I suppose when LDS Scripture says a person feels a "burning in their bosom" from the "fire of the holy ghost"... it is really saying they are on fire?Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance on LDS doctrine. So when I quote verse 81, and correlate it with verse 84, you think I am talking about verse 105 and 106?I wonder about you sometimes Phage. You remind me of the proverbial trigger happy cowboy, all too eager to make enemies, when he could have had allies. BZZZTTT! Awww... and he wasn't even close. Tell him what he could have won Alex. Well, our contestant had the chance to read and comprehend texts, and intellectually discuss their meaning, winning respect and honor. Sadly, he decided that was not what he wanted, and hastily came to an inappropriate conclusion.Edited by Michamus, : inserted last line.Edited by Michamus, : typo

No, but when it says that someone is to "suffer the vengeance of eternal fire" I figure that, if not fire, it is at least similarly unpleasant. Are you attempting to argue that suffering from eternal fire *actually* means something like intensely experiencing zeal or what? When I quote them as a group and they appear to share consistent terminology, and they refer to people who end up in the same location, after the same period of time, and under the same conditions... sure. And I wonder about you Michamus. You have a lot of insults and claims that I am wrong, but you don't seem to be able to back them up with anything other than your unsupported opinion and derisive hoots. I would remind you of Rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines:

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

---

You are hectoring, you are goading, and more importantly, you are not providing an argument.

Writing it don't make it true.My lawnmower manufacturer provides an owners manual that states I should maintain proper engine oil levels.
Are they imposing an arbitrary law?
Can I choose to ignore that "law"?
If I ignore the "law" and my lawnmower's engine ceases to function is the manufacturer punishing me?
After all, they made the lawnmower and the arbitrary law. Apparently you were issued the wrong key.
You might wanna check with management.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Hi, Phage. Wow.So, what you see is that you have been a calm, rational, model citizen with a Platonic dedication to honest understanding, and I have been a rude, inconsiderate, babbling idiot?Phage, you have read all of three verses of Mormon scripture, and you are now asserting the position that you understand the beliefs of the religion better than two of its practitioners.
And, not only that, but you are criticizing my arrogance.Many Christians and creationists have claimed to understand science better than scientists after hearing one sermon or reading one book.
Do you really think that your approach so far is any different from that?
Why does the methodology suddenly become valid when you use it for your purposes?Scripture is not intended to be read as literal words and semantics, but as principles and bottom lines with lots of emphatic, flowery language and inspirational gems to drive the point home.This may sound like a cop-out to you (it does to me). But, I have already pointed out one instance in which a word (eternal) is used in a non-conventional way in the scriptures. Note that, in this case, the precedent for the non-conventional usage of eternal was established 2 years before it was used in the scripture you quoted (D&C 19 was written in 1830, and D&C 76 was written in 1832).You didn’t know that eternal and endless had a non-conventional meaning in the scriptures when you posted your argument, and, consequently, your argument was wrong. Yet, you persist in asserting that your literal reading of a bunch of religious terms is superior to the lifetime of study that Michamus and I have put into it.Like it or not, this is just the way things are. Lots of religious writings contain this kind of language. Religious texts can say, wrath of God, when neither God nor anybody’s temper is involved, and still be teaching a correct principle. Religion is not science, and was never meant to be: scriptures are not scholarly textbooks, but practical handbooks designed for average people, who don’t care about scientific technicalities.By way of analogy, the average person does not care what the difference between a wasp and a bee is, and knowing the difference does absolutely nothing to help the average person prevent being stung by either. So, if God’s purpose is to prevent stings, does it really matter if He uses the terms wasp and bee incorrectly?You can argue that it’s unfair, or that it makes it too hard to understand, and you’ll get no complaint from me: I agree with those sentiments, and I struggle through my scripture study for it. But, discuss it with any Mormon, and you’re most likely going to hear the same things as what Michamus and I are saying.Mormons believe that sin is an eternal (i.e. deterministic, out-of-God’s-control) principle.
Mormons believe that the torment and suffering we will feel is the direct result of our own actions, not something that God does to us. Here is a link to D&C 76. And, here is a link to D&C 138, which explains how the spirit prison (i.e. Hell) fits into the LDS Plan of Salvation.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

First, average people do not have the ability to properly decipher the religious texts. Most simply listen to what their leaders(priests, pasteurs, etc) tell them. The great number of translations available and potentially conflicting texts make it almost impossible for your average person to understand the books. Furthermore, when the Bible was written your average person could not read(and this continued for about 80 percent of the Bibles current life time) . Well learned men who went to school(and for a large part of the history the church was the only place you could get an education at) were the only ones literate, especially in Latin. To say the Bible was written for the average person is completely false. It was written for the elite priests and leaders in societies and even today requires in depth reading and reasoning to reach many conclusions people believe(most of which without the slightest idea how their church got there)Second, "scholarly books" as you say are written explicitly to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation. If you leave texts open to interpretation, people will interpret it the way they want, not necessarily the correct way. And there is no reason to favor one interpretation over another(other than personal preference).Third, If an all powerful being was inspiring the authors of the books for people(particularly one intended for the elite in society) to use as a guide, he would write it as clearly and outright as possible. Half speaks and interpretations of words in manners they don't mean in normal language(eternal) would not accomplish this objective. Unless God is intentionally trying to screw with people, he would have the Bible say what he means so that people can't simply wiggle in what they want it to say(even subconsciously, confirmation bias is very important to avoid).Essentially, it would not be a very useful book if ever time someone encounters something they have an issue with, they can shift the entire meaning and interpretation of the passages.Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.