Blessed are the Cynical

Remove all ads!

First, Christ had to be divine in order to die for our sins. If Islam denies the divinity of Christ, then ultimately, they are mutually exclusive, despite an overlap in many of their teachings. Once again, you demand proof of the unprovable. I have put my faith in Christ and decided to get on with my life.

I've never had AIDS, there fore nobody must have AIDS. Sorry, that proves nothing. Further, in many instances, it is the Holy Ghost, one third of the Godhead (or Trinity) that addresses mortals. To those that don't know what to expect, they could miss it entirely, or not realize who is speaking...

LMAO. You ask me a question, then get pissed at me when I give the best answer I can think of? What, then, was the point of the question?

Since we don't practice Baptism until the age of 8 years, ALL children who die before that point are redeemed through the atonement of Christ.

This is exactly why Christ was sent to die for our sins. Without an atonement, justice can never be satisfied. Because Christ has died for our sins, He can act as a mediator for us, allowing mercy to be extended unto all of us. All that is asked in return is faith in Christ, and that we do our best to follow His example.

When Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden of Eden, they came into a world that was less than paradisical. They also came to a world where Satan and those that followed him when he was cast from Heaven (See Isaiah 14:12) could tempt us toward sin, and away from God. Because so many of these sins come complete with temporal pleasure, they are a natural course for most of us.

It is also a warning to those who are judged that if they feel the judgement is not fair, that they risk rendering a similarly unfair judgement against that person.

 

Gnarff, Muslims don't believe that Christ died for our sins.

Actually, Gnarff, the fact it is unprovable was my point to begin with.

Gnarff, I don't need to die of AIDS to see that other people have died of AIDS. I have met many people who seem to think they can talk to God, but I've never met one who can prove it. Without such proof, I shall remain a skeptic, neither believing nor disbelieving in God. If you have a problem with it, that's fine, but it's you're problem. Not mine.

You really need to check out this link. It'll save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

 

Thanks for having my back with that link about rhetorical questions, Drew.

@Gnarff: I'm not "pissed" at your answer, I was merely using the question to further drive home the point that Drew was also working on: that there are many, many "holy" books that arise from many different walks of human existence. To arbitrarily declare one as more holy than any other - let alone to single out a particular version of that single work! - is as human an action as was writing those books in the first place.

@NOG: Yes, I believe in a God who pulled the trigger on Creation and sat back to watch the show. God is infinite, therefore God doesn't need agents to involve God-self in the workings of the universe, God's already part of it! IMO, religion is all about how people tune in to that infinity.

 

And with no mediator, there can be no forgiveness, and thus condemnation for all. With a restrictive set of rules, we're bound to sin...

I beg to differ, but I can't prove it until it's too late...

That was a poor example of a rhetorical question. Rally should have known I'd have an answer for that question.

And I was speaking for my particular choice of Holy book. What good is a Holy book if I claim to believe it, but don't advocate it? And unlike you, I actually am curious to what you're going to say...

First, the decision is not arbitrary. It is what I actually believe. You make it sound as though I put the titles on a big "crown and anchor" wheel, gave it a spin and picked the one that came up. Secondly, I again state that I believe that the Bible was originally inspired by God, despite the various butcher jobs done by translators, the key components preserved by divine providence, and in the case of the JST, restored by God's will. Not act of man, but of God.

If that is all, then that's like absolving the father of all responsibility after having sex...

But what if human actions were intended as part of that plan? Shouldn't we then have instructions given on what we're supposed to do?

Are you suggesting that we try to understand God, but he doesn't care? My liver and lungs wouldn't be able to handle the booze and weed I'd need to live under that belief...

 

They don't believe that either.

Whatever. It makes little difference, since I have nothing nice to say about a God who judges men by what they believe (or refuse to believe) instead of by what they do. Pardon my blasphemy, but I want no part of a God who condemns to hell anyone who doesn't believe that the 33 year old son of a 14 year old virgin turned water into wine, fed 1000 people with a fish and some breadcrumbs, walked on water, revived a dead man, and personally came back from the dead himself only to then ascend bodily into heaven - and then ask for the intercession of the aforementioned 33 year old son of a 14 year old virgin - without any corroborating physical evidence.

Actually it was embarrassingly obvious. If you still can't recognize it now, you may want to consider enrolling in some remedial English classes. I'm not joking.

Gnarff, did you come to Mormonism after examining the great bulk of the world's various religions and reading their holy books or were you simply brought up in the LDS church? Did you individually weigh the merits of the Baghavad Gita, the Koran, Dianetics, the Vedas, he Tantras, the Puranas, the Epics, or the Analects against the book of Mormon in the process of choosing your faith? By your own admission, you most assuredly did not. Without examining other religions in any depth, you ultimately decided that the religion in which you were raised was the right religion. My friend, that is the very definition of arbitrary.

This doesn't mean that your religion isn't THE ONE TRUE PATH ®, or that you are wrong, but your decision of which faith to follow was arbitrary. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, Gnarff. Just own it and move on.

 

@Gnarff: I understand that your answers are based on your sincere beliefs. Here's the part you don't seem to get from me - I'm glad that you've found a path to God that works for you. Could you possibly find it in your heart to do the same for me, even though I read a different Bible and pray differently than you do?

 

I have SO been waiting for that to crop up! Thanks for not letting me down, dude!

 

But we ARE judged by actions, but mediation comes through faith.

Did you ever think that the point of this lack of corroborating evidence is intentional? Surely you'd want your children to behave as you've taught them when you aren't there with them. That's the same thing with God (our Heavenly Father). Give out absolute proof, and there's no faith, and no testimony of the rightness of what's been taught. Just a regurgitation of book answers with no personal understanding or conviction.

My decision to return to the faith was made after looking at various other philosophies and psychological theories. I was inactive for 12 years, and that was during my college days...

Ultimately, I have to, but that does not absolve me of the commandment to speak up. Once the words are typed, what you do with them is your business...

We hold no monopoly on truth, but we believe that other faiths have slight mistakes or omissions that ultimately fall short...

 

Faith in Jesus. Everyone who places their faith in the wrong invisible friend will burn...

Not even for a second. There are thousands of religions out there. If God really cared which one I practiced, she'd send me a memo.

What are you talking about? If the God of Abraham were an absolute and incontrovertible fact of life, who wouldn't worship him? I mean, this psycho has torched cities, ordered genocides...hell, he even killed some guy's entire family on a bet! This is one mother****er I would not want to piss off!

Yawn. Other faiths say the exact same thing about your faith. Tell me something new.

 

Two small points: I am not aware of God killing some guys family on a bet, and I would have definitely used the term "bad mother****er" (think Pulp Fiction) or mayhaps simply bad mo'fo'.

 

@AFI: See the story of Job. He was visited with all sorts of miseries as a test of his faith, after a discussion/bet between God and Satan.

 

They were new kids from a new wife.

 

What if other humans are the ones bringing the memo out to those of today? Do you then dismiss them if it sounds ridiculous?

Those victims posed a legitimate threat to a fledgeling faith that God wanted to develop. At the time of the Great Flood, there were a total of 8 righteous people (about 2000 years removed from the Garden of Eden), and Prophes could not find righteous people in Sodom and Gamorah. It was an act of protection. And if God was as proven as you say he was, then why were there so many unbelievers and sinners?

 

If they can prove their word is God's word, sure, I'll hear it.

Yawn. There's an old expression that comes to mind about only the winners getting to write the history, but I'll ignore that for now. I'll also ignore your implication that, 2000 years after Eden, everyone in the world knew absolutely that the God of Abraham was a real and living entity (there is no scriptural reason to believe this). Other than that, I think you are forgetting something. Unlike you, I don't believe that the bible is revealed history. Biblical arguments will not sway me, not even poorly crafted biblical arguments full of holes and circular reasoning.

 

An act of protection? We're talking about a being who can make it rain frogs, can destroy entire cities, floods the whole planet and kills everything on it because he was annoyed with a handful of people, kills without even the need to snap his fingers... hell we're talking about the being who presumably created everything, and can just as easily unmake it. He doesn't need protection. Nothing is a threat to such a being. This whole thing doesn't make any sense.

And while we're on the subject of the Flood... the Sumerians had a story in their mythology about the gods (notice the plural) getting annoyed at humans and flooding the planet to get rid of them. One of the more forward-thinking gods orders one man to build a boat and to take a couple of each animal so the gods can repopulate the planet afterwards. Sounds familiar? Guess what, this myth is older than Judaism (never mind the Bible)

That's a circular question if I've ever seen one.

 

Remember that Abraham was not born until a few hundred years after the Flood...

He was the protector of those that worshipped him.

Sumeria flourished about the time of Abraham, which was a few hundred years after the Great Flood. They would have been the decendants of Noah and his sons, but in the absense of his prophets would have ddrifted into polytheism and apostasy.

Judaism was basically the institution of Religion by God after several societies devolved into polytheism and other forms of apostasy. Christianity was the reorganization of such religion after the coming of Christ, reflecting the fulfillment of the promises made to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. The Mormons believe that the Lord has again restored His desired order among the faithful after centruies of confusion and change.

 

@Gnarff: The Torah was modeled on many, many pieces of older literature from other Ancient Near East cultures. The flood story is only one example - I actually attended a study program on exactly this topic last year. If Jewish scholars can recognize this, why can't you?