Questions for Christians

[The Legendary Guest]

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

To clarify: Are you actually interested in hearing my opinions, or do you just want to disagree with me? I purposefully kept my answers to the original questions short and to the point, because to explain my beliefs in detail would take up a lot of energy and page space, and I didn't think he was looking for multiple essays. If you are genuinely curious to hear a more in-depth explanation of any of my answers, let me know which ones, and what specifically you would like to know. If I'm misinterpreting your tone, and you were genuinely curious about each of the questions you asked, let me know and I'll go through and answer them to the best of my ability.

I am asking questions, in accordance with the thread topic. I've already indicated where I wanted answers. Be aware that you're in a sub-forum of the ED, so having your answers challenged is not unusual.

[keito-ninja]

The Legendary Guest

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

To clarify: Are you actually interested in hearing my opinions, or do you just want to disagree with me? I purposefully kept my answers to the original questions short and to the point, because to explain my beliefs in detail would take up a lot of energy and page space, and I didn't think he was looking for multiple essays. If you are genuinely curious to hear a more in-depth explanation of any of my answers, let me know which ones, and what specifically you would like to know. If I'm misinterpreting your tone, and you were genuinely curious about each of the questions you asked, let me know and I'll go through and answer them to the best of my ability.

I am asking questions, in accordance with the thread topic. I've already indicated where I wanted answers. Be aware that you're in a sub-forum of the ED, so having your answers challenged is not unusual.

There's nothing wrong with you challenging my answers; I'm just trying to determine if it's worth responding. It's really late at night for me, and I don't feel like putting in the effort to respond if they really are just challenges, as opposed to genuine inquiries. I enjoy discussions based on mutual learning, not arguments based on trying to prove each other wrong. I am always happy to share my thoughts and opinions with those who are curious, but I am getting the impression that you just want to argue.

[The Legendary Guest]

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

To clarify: Are you actually interested in hearing my opinions, or do you just want to disagree with me? I purposefully kept my answers to the original questions short and to the point, because to explain my beliefs in detail would take up a lot of energy and page space, and I didn't think he was looking for multiple essays. If you are genuinely curious to hear a more in-depth explanation of any of my answers, let me know which ones, and what specifically you would like to know. If I'm misinterpreting your tone, and you were genuinely curious about each of the questions you asked, let me know and I'll go through and answer them to the best of my ability.

I am asking questions, in accordance with the thread topic. I've already indicated where I wanted answers. Be aware that you're in a sub-forum of the ED, so having your answers challenged is not unusual.

There's nothing wrong with you challenging my answers; I'm just trying to determine if it's worth responding. It's really late at night for me, and I don't feel like putting in the effort to respond if they really are just challenges, as opposed to genuine inquiries. I enjoy discussions based on mutual learning, not arguments based on trying to prove each other wrong. I am always happy to share my thoughts and opinions with those who are curious, but I am getting the impression that you just want to argue.

I have to wonder why you're here in the first place, in that case. I asked questions because your answers do not make logical sense. Why would be in a thread for asking you questions if you weren't interested in answering questions?

[keito-ninja]

The Legendary Guest

I have to wonder why you're here in the first place, in that case. I asked questions because your answers do not make logical sense. Why would be in a thread for asking you questions if you weren't interested in answering questions?

I have found that there are two styles of debate I have had on ED. On one hand, there are people who are interested in debate for the purpose of both learning and teaching--on the other hand there are people who are just interested in proving themselves right, me wrong, or both. I find the latter type of debate exhausting and pointless. At the beginning of any discussion, I usually cannot guess what kind of debate it will turn out to be, but based on our other discussion, I get the impression that you are interested in the I'm-right-your-wrong type of debate, which I know from experience will only end up going round in circles, neither of us learning anything useful. It's late at night and I'm too tired for that.

[The Legendary Guest]

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

I have to wonder why you're here in the first place, in that case. I asked questions because your answers do not make logical sense. Why would be in a thread for asking you questions if you weren't interested in answering questions?

I have found that there are two styles of debate I have had on ED. On one hand, there are people who are interested in debate for the purpose of both learning and teaching--on the other hand there are people who are just interested in proving themselves right, me wrong, or both. I find the latter type of debate exhausting and pointless. At the beginning of any discussion, I usually cannot guess what kind of debate it will turn out to be, but based on our other discussion, I get the impression that you are interested in the I'm-right-your-wrong type of debate, which I know from experience will only end up going round in circles, neither of us learning anything useful. It's late at night and I'm too tired for that.

Nothing is stopping you from replying tomorrow, and it's interesting that you've arrived at that conclusion you've had little contact with me.

[keito-ninja]

The Legendary Guest

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

I have to wonder why you're here in the first place, in that case. I asked questions because your answers do not make logical sense. Why would be in a thread for asking you questions if you weren't interested in answering questions?

I have found that there are two styles of debate I have had on ED. On one hand, there are people who are interested in debate for the purpose of both learning and teaching--on the other hand there are people who are just interested in proving themselves right, me wrong, or both. I find the latter type of debate exhausting and pointless. At the beginning of any discussion, I usually cannot guess what kind of debate it will turn out to be, but based on our other discussion, I get the impression that you are interested in the I'm-right-your-wrong type of debate, which I know from experience will only end up going round in circles, neither of us learning anything useful. It's late at night and I'm too tired for that.

Nothing is stopping you from replying tomorrow, and it's interesting that you've arrived at that conclusion you've had little contact with me.

I have arrived at no conclusion--I'm simply saying that's the impression I have gotten from you. I am very aware that first impressions are often false. It must seem strangely redundant for me to focus so much energy on analysing the nature of debate rather than just getting on with it and answering your questions... I guess I often find analysing the debate-style of the people I am debating with just as interesting as the content of the debate itself. I find it so interesting that I made an entire thread about it.

[The Legendary Guest]

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

I have to wonder why you're here in the first place, in that case. I asked questions because your answers do not make logical sense. Why would be in a thread for asking you questions if you weren't interested in answering questions?

I have found that there are two styles of debate I have had on ED. On one hand, there are people who are interested in debate for the purpose of both learning and teaching--on the other hand there are people who are just interested in proving themselves right, me wrong, or both. I find the latter type of debate exhausting and pointless. At the beginning of any discussion, I usually cannot guess what kind of debate it will turn out to be, but based on our other discussion, I get the impression that you are interested in the I'm-right-your-wrong type of debate, which I know from experience will only end up going round in circles, neither of us learning anything useful. It's late at night and I'm too tired for that.

Nothing is stopping you from replying tomorrow, and it's interesting that you've arrived at that conclusion you've had little contact with me.

I have arrived at no conclusion--I'm simply saying that's the impression I have gotten from you. I am very aware that first impressions are often false. It must seem strangely redundant for me to focus so much energy on analysing the nature of debate rather than just getting on with it and answering your questions... I guess I often find analysing the debate-style of the people I am debating with just as interesting as the content of the debate itself. I find it so interesting that I made an entire thread about it.

That's a mighty old thread.

[keito-ninja]

The Legendary Guest

keito-ninja

Mea quidem sententia

Free will
1. If God is omniscient (knows all things; knows what will happen before they happen), then how do humans have free will? If I was going to have waffles at 8:00 am on Sunday of (insert day, month, and year), and if God knows I will do exactly this without any slight variation, then every action I do will be known before I do it.

Knowing what you will do is entirely different from dictating what you will do.

That doesn't really change the scope of the question, though.

Then I don't understand the question.

The Legendary Guest

Demonstrate what indicates "a holy nature".

This request is so vague that I do not understand what you are asking.

The Legendary Guest

Quote:

Mea quidem sententia

Morality
1. Does God love the holy because they are holy, or are they holy because they’re loved by God? If the former, then morality exists apart from God. If the latter, then God’s morals are arbitrary. (This means if in a world God said murder was good, then it would be because God said so.)

The former. Though God loves everybody, holy or not.

Demonstrate how eternal torture for a being whose every move was known to the god ahead of time fits in with the notion of "loving everybody".

"Eternal torture" is only for those who knowingly rebel against God. Just because God knows what we are going to do doesn't mean he controls us. We suffer the natural consequences for the actions we chose--because God loves us, he tries to convince us to follow his commandments, which are put in place to help us receive joy.

The Legendary Guest

Quote:

Mea quidem sententia

2. If God is morally perfect (free from fault; blameless), and if you believe God brought death to infants and children because of the actions of the parents, then how can God be morally perfect?

In some situations, the actions of the parents might cause the death of their children, but such is the result of natural consequences, not God's condemnation.

So the omniscient god creates some children just to die due to the actions of their parents, is that it?

God sends us to Earth to gain bodies, that we might grow as eternal beings--an early death does not lessen that significance, but it does rob them of the opportunity to learn and grow in their mortal lives. On earth we have free will, that free will is often used to create unsafe environments, God does not take away our free will and so it often results in suffering, for adults and children alike.

The Legendary Guest

Quote:

Mea quidem sententia

3. A man and a woman can perform acts, which are condemned by God if these acts are performed between two men or two women. Why does God take issue with these if the two of the same sex are consenting (both agree; no harm between the two)?

If it’s because it’s not considered natural, then neither is wearing clothes or using electronic devices (lights, microwaves, etc.). If it’s because neither can bear children, then God shouldn't be pleased with infertile/sterile people. If it’s because both are of the same sex, then God’s objection is arbitrary.

The key is marriage, not consent.

So if the partners are married, that excuses the homosexuality, according to your way of thinking? Where does it say that in the text? Please understand that I am aware you rely on non-canonical texts as well.

Latter Day Saints believe that family is forever. Marriage is not just an agreement made for legal reasons, "till death do us part", it is a covenant you and your spouse make with God--and it is eternally binding (when the temple ordinances are performed). We also believe that gender is an eternal spiritual quality--not just a biological difference. Eternal marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married to enjoy all the legal benefits of any other other couple...I'm just saying that it does not hold all the same implications of "marriage" from a religious point of view)

The Legendary Guest

Quote:

Mea quidem sententia

4. If a father had two sons and punished the one who wasn't doing anything wrong, while not punishing the son who did wrong, would this not appear wrong in your eyes? Liken this to humans, who are sons and daughters of God and Jesus taking the punishment for all of us (even though he did this because it was his father’s will). I think unconditional love would be the Father laying his life down for his children.

Jesus volunteered to take the punishment for all of us because he loves us. In order for the plan to work, he had to come to earth and die for us--something which the Father was not in a position to do.

That's not answering the question, though. How is it moral to punish one child for the mistakes of the others?

God did not punish Jesus. God does not generally actively punish any of us. The punishments we face are the natural consequences of our actions. Jesus knew that without a redeemer, no one would be able to escape the law of justice, so he paid the price of justice that we might be able to escape the consequences of sin, through repentance.

The Legendary Guest

Quote:

Mea quidem sententia

Ontology
1. If God is ontologically perfect, as in he is perfect in being, then why would God create a universe? (To be ontologically perfect would mean God doesn’t need or want to create a universe, nor would he have any reason to do so. For God to create a universe would mean he isn’t perfect.)

To give his children a place to grow and learn.

Why does the god need children if the god is ontologically perfect?

The family is of God--the purpose of family is the bring joy and happiness, not just to procreate--to have children is a joy for God, not something that needed to be accomplished.

The Legendary Guest

Quote:

Mea quidem sententia

Science
1. According to Genesis 1, the Universe was created in six days, but modern science tells us that the Universe came about 13.8 billion years ago. Genesis 1 tells us water was present and the land came from it, but modern science tells us the Earth had no water when it was being formed and water came about after.

Genesis also says the Sun and Moon were created on the same day with the stars, but the Sun is older than the Moon, and stars existed before Earth came to be. How do you resolve these apparent inaccuracies from a book whose source is from an all-knowing god?


2. In light of modern science, the historicity of Adam and Eve has been undermined based on the theory of evolution. How could the death and resurrection of Jesus be in effect if sin never entered the world?

"Day" does not necessarily mean one rotation of the earth, in this context.
I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is more or less literal, accounting for how sin entered the world.
There are many apparent inaccuracies between religion and science--I expect everyone comes to terms with them in different ways.

How was there any such concept as "day" before the Earth revolved around the sun? Evolution disproves the notion of a literal Genesis account with respect to life on Earth.

The word "day" is just used to describe a passage of time. I don't know what the original Greek or Hebrew word was.

[Bogotanian]

Mea quidem sententia

Free will
1. If God is omniscient (knows all things; knows what will happen before they happen), then how do humans have free will? If I was going to have waffles at 8:00 am on Sunday of (insert day, month, and year), and if God knows I will do exactly this without any slight variation, then every action I do will be known before I do it.

God can include limited sovereignty as part of predestination (giving people the ability to choose things in the scope of the master plan) as part of his plan, meaning that he does not know in the end who will be saved or not, but leaves it up to free will.

Quote:

2. If God created humans with the ability to choose right or wrong (making them free agents), and if God can only do right, but not wrong, then is God not a free agent, since he is bound by his holy nature?

In a sense I would agree that God is bound by his holy nature. There are some things that God can't do due to his attributes, such as tell a lie, or sin (do anything that is not holy). In that respect it's why God, technically, can't just "reset" all of creation for a different outcome, just wipe the slates clean with the blink of an eye, or "do" things that people ask well can't God just do that for a better world? Being a holy God, he demands punishment for sin, so he is bound by his attributes in a way, as well as the world being bound to them.

Quote:

2.a. If God created humans with the ability to choose right or wrong (making them free agents), and if in the end those who are redeemed will only be able to do right, but not wrong, then are they no longer free?

(If to both questions the answer is no, then why couldn’t God create humans with free agency and possess a holy, unchangeable nature—or at least a nature that is strongly inclined towards holiness—in the midst of experiencing pain and suffering, just as it was with Jesus?)

I don't think that's a right understanding. Those who are redeemed are not only able to do right (Christians sin all the time. I am opposed to the Calvinist understanding here). They can do wrong, and are free to do so, but also free to repent. I believe that they are also capable of walking away from Grace (I don't hold to once saved always saved).

Quote:

Morality
1. Does God love the holy because they are holy, or are they holy because they’re loved by God? If the former, then morality exists apart from God. If the latter, then God’s morals are arbitrary. (This means if in a world God said murder was good, then it would be because God said so.)

Technically, no-one is holy as everyone is considered a sinner, the redeemed as well. People strive to be holy, but the standard of holiness is impossible to achieve, therefore there's the need for redemption. So I guess I would disagree with both of those views. I don't hold to the view that God has a special predestined elect group to be saved while no-one else has a chance.

Quote:

2. If God is morally perfect (free from fault; blameless), and if you believe God brought death to infants and children because of the actions of the parents, then how can God be morally perfect?

Good and tough question, also tough to answer. I've talked about stuff that kind of relates to this point so I'll reiterate an unpopular view. Technically, from the Christian worldview, every sinner deserves death, and it is merely by God's grace that people are given time to live and hopefully repent from their ways. Technically, God can remove life from who he wants as creator, and everyone is deserving of death. An interesting and pertinent thought would be "It's only by God's grace that we aren't all dead right now, as some people are."

Quote:

3. A man and a woman can perform acts, which are condemned by God if these acts are performed between two men or two women. Why does God take issue with these if the two of the same sex are consenting (both agree; no harm between the two)?

If it’s because it’s not considered natural, then neither is wearing clothes or using electronic devices (lights, microwaves, etc.). If it’s because neither can bear children, then God shouldn't be pleased with infertile/sterile people. If it’s because both are of the same sex, then God’s objection is arbitrary.

Well, what is the definition for what a sin is in God's eyes? Is not every sin also arbitrary towards God's will and desires? Could I also not say that God saying that lying is a sin is an arbitrary thing? Why is lying a sin? Because God said so. It is based on his definitions and what he considers to be a sin, and it seems like homosexuality would fall in that category.

Quote:

4. If a father had two sons and punished the one who wasn't doing anything wrong, while not punishing the son who did wrong, would this not appear wrong in your eyes? Liken this to humans, who are sons and daughters of God and Jesus taking the punishment for all of us (even though he did this because it was his father’s will). I think unconditional love would be the Father laying his life down for his children.

Again, all have sinned is a theme in the Bible. In the analogy, both of the sons are doing something wrong in actuality. Also, I believe that ultimate justice will not take place until the end (unjust things happen in the world, bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people etc) but the Bible states that in the end everyone will give an account. So justice isn't really taking place on earth in a sense.

Also I believe that Jesus laying down his life shows that unconditional love (God laying down his life for his children).

Quote:

Ontology
1. If God is ontologically perfect, as in he is perfect in being, then why would God create a universe? (To be ontologically perfect would mean God doesn’t need or want to create a universe, nor would he have any reason to do so. For God to create a universe would mean he isn’t perfect.)

Maybe you could explain this point more, but I don't see why creating things would have anything to do with God's perfection or no.

[keito-ninja]

The Legendary Guest

That's a mighty old thread.

Yup. The thread 'ain't active, but the train of thought still is.

[The Legendary Guest]

keito-ninja

Then I don't understand the question.

If the god knows you will do it, in advance, how are you truly making a choice?

Quote:

This request is so vague that I do not understand what you are asking.

Not unlike the statement "God has the power to do wrong if he chose, but he chooses always to only do right because of his holy nature. The same principle applies to those who are redeemed.". How can you say something like this and not know how to demonstrate what, exactly, you mean by a "holy nature"?

Quote:

"Eternal torture" is only for those who knowingly rebel against God.

Yet the god supposedly created all beings and knows what every one of them will do.

Quote:

Just because God knows what we are going to do doesn't mean he controls us.

In which case, he has created beings who will rebel and done nothing to change that.

Quote:

We suffer the natural consequences for the actions we chose--because God loves us, he tries to convince us to follow his commandments, which are put in place to help us receive joy.

Either the god is omiscient and knows all, including exactly what we'll do down to the minute detail, or the god is not, in fact, omniscient. If the god knows what we'll do and creates beings with the foreknowledge that they will "rebel", the god is intentionally creating beings with the complete knowledge that it will be punishing them and is not, in fact, trying to see that everybody recieves "joy".

Quote:

God sends us to Earth to gain bodies, that we might grow as eternal beings--an early death does not lessen that significance, but it does rob them of the opportunity to learn and grow in their mortal lives.

Why? If the god knows all, what is the purpose of "bodies"?

Quote:

On earth we have free will, that free will is often used to create unsafe environments, God does not take away our free will and so it often results in suffering, for adults and children alike.

I am not convinced of this god giving anybody "free will" at all. Either the god creates beings which it knows all about and what they will do or it does not. I do not see how there is a "choice" involved when the god knows what the beings will do before they do it and does nothing to stop them from experiencing danger. I am a parent. If I knew something was doing to harm my children, I would stop them. That is moral.

Quote:

Latter Day Saints believe that family is forever. Marriage is not just an agreement made for legal reasons, "till death do us part", it is a covenant you and your spouse make with God--and it is eternally binding (when the temple ordinances are performed).

I will be blunt - LDS believe a lot of things that make little to no sense. I will not embarrass you by elaborating on how little sense, since much of what I know is not the type of thing you might want stated publicly. This is just your belief, and you have demonstrated no reason that this is correct or true outside your belief system.

Quote:

We also believe that gender is an eternal spiritual quality--not just a biological difference.

There is absolutely nothing to support this scientifically.

Quote:

Eternal marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married to enjoy all the legal benefits of any other other couple...I'm just saying that it does not hold all the same implications of "marriage" from a religious point of view)

This does not demonstrate why anybody should accept this as reasonable, accurate, true or correct. It's just an assertion.

Quote:

God did not punish Jesus. God does not generally actively punish any of us. The punishments we face are the natural consequences of our actions. Jesus knew that without a redeemer, no one would be able to escape the law of justice, so he paid the price of justice that we might be able to escape the consequences of sin, through repentance.

The god permitted the Jesus character to be punished in order to pay the wages for humans "sins". How is that the natural consequence of Jesus' actions? How does "repentance" play into the idea that one person who is not guilty take the punishment for those who are? That's not what I teach my children. I teach them that what you do wrong, you own up to. I think loopholes to avoid your consequences are dishonest - and immoral.

Quote:

The family is of God--the purpose of family is the bring joy and happiness, not just to procreate--to have children is a joy for God, not something that needed to be accomplished.

Which does nothing to answer the question "Why does the god need children if the god is ontologically perfect?" as in the beings who call this god their father.

Quote:

The word "day" is just used to describe a passage of time. I don't know what the original Greek or Hebrew word was.

Then how do you know that's what was meant by the word "day"?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Bogotanian

Mea quidem sententia

Free will
1. If God is omniscient (knows all things; knows what will happen before they happen), then how do humans have free will? If I was going to have waffles at 8:00 am on Sunday of (insert day, month, and year), and if God knows I will do exactly this without any slight variation, then every action I do will be known before I do it.

God can include limited sovereignty as part of predestination (giving people the ability to choose things in the scope of the master plan) as part of his plan, meaning that he does not know in the end who will be saved or not, but leaves it up to free will.

Which isn't the case if God is omniscient (knows all things; knows what will happen before they happen).

[Samadhi23]

Free will
1. Knowledge does not prevent action. Picture the method of viewing action for a timeless being. If you are not bound by time, then it really isn't foreknowledge so much as the ability to go and look - at any time - at whatever you like. So if someone asked "what is Frank going to do on July 2nd 2016" the being not bounded by time could simply look at that date and state what they were doing. This did not prevent Frank from being the one to choose what he did.

2. Where does it say God is REQUIRED to only do right? He could choose to always do right, but that is not a requirement.

2.a. Where does it say that the redeemed will only be able to do right? To be fair I haven't even heard most denominations claim that this happened; it usually seems to be something relegated to the Calvinists more than most other sects.

[Sidenote on the "where does it say that" questions. I don't really care if you find a passage in the bible that vaguely alludes to the point in question; as the bible itself states that it is subject to people changing it for their own motives. I am more pointing out that just because something might be commonly associated with the religion - doesn't mean it is a necessary part of the religion. A lot of folks, both in and outside the religion, seem to have difficulty separating this and hence a lot of stupid becomes "mandatory" in some folks' minds.


Morality
1. "This means if in a world God said murder was good, then it would be because God said so" <- This-ish. It is only arbitrary if you assume that omniscience doesn't grant better insight into "what is truly right" than non-omniscience would.
I also want to comment, however, that the Christian God does NOT advocate static morality (despite the number of Christians that state otherwise). If you want to read more on that subject, I would recommend Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling as the best breakdown I have seen. This is important however because there is no "murder is good" or "murder is bad." There are actual circumstances. Now, "murder is bad" might be the best morality in 99% of those actual circumstances, hence why it is a good general rule of thumb and is generally considered worth mentioning. smile

2. Death is not a morally bad thing. After all, everyone dies.

3. Just an example of gradual morality.

4. This reasoning requires and assumes a lot of separations (God separate from Jesus separate from us) that are most definitely not canon. If we are all the same, at least to some extent, then this point becomes entirely moot.

Ontology
1. Why do you assume that God conforms to your definition of what it means to be ontologically perfect? Why do you think that ontological perfection would even imply that creation couldn't be chosen?

Science
1. Fundamentalism didn't even begin to be a movement within Christianity until the late 19th century. If you really want to know about Christianity, my first recommendation is to stop listening to the flavor of the month ******** broadcast on FoxNews for us to laugh at - and start with some actual theologians biggrin Even a lot of fundamentalists are aware that certain parts of the bible are intended in a non-literal manner.

2. If you insist on taking things this literally, this could easily be explained by evolutionary jumps rather than the static gradual evolution. wink

[keito-ninja]

The Legendary Guest

I will be blunt - LDS believe a lot of things that make little to no sense. I will not embarrass you by elaborating on how little sense, since much of what I know is not the type of thing you might want stated publicly. This is just your belief, and you have demonstrated no reason that this is correct or true outside your belief system.
...
There is absolutely nothing to support this scientifically.
...
This does not demonstrate why anybody should accept this as reasonable, accurate, true or correct. It's just an assertion.

Let me start by saying, that I am not trying to prove that my belief is correct, nor am I trying to demonstrate why anyone else should accept it as true. I am just trying to explain how my beliefs make sense to me. I am not trying to convince you of anything: my only goal is to clarify what LDS believe, because, based on your questions, you do not seem to have a clear understanding of the doctrine.

Feel free to elaborate on why my beliefs don't make sense to you--I will attempt to explain why they do make sense to me. It's possible that our conversation will devolve to: "You only think they make sense because you are ignoring logic." If it comes to that, I will probably stop trying to explain my point of view, not because I can think of no answer, but because my attempts to communicate my reasoning are not being understood.

I am not interested in a debate where the focus is trying to prove who is right/wrong; I am interested in sharing and comparing opinions so that we can both come to a better understanding of what the other person believes, and how the other person thinks.

The Legendary Guest

If the god knows you will do it, in advance, how are you truly making a choice?
...
Not unlike the statement "God has the power to do wrong if he chose, but he chooses always to only do right because of his holy nature. The same principle applies to those who are redeemed.". How can you say something like this and not know how to demonstrate what, exactly, you mean by a "holy nature"?
...
Yet the god supposedly created all beings and knows what every one of them will do.
...
In which case, he has created beings who will rebel and done nothing to change that.
...
Either the god is omiscient and knows all, including exactly what we'll do down to the minute detail, or the god is not, in fact, omniscient. If the god knows what we'll do and creates beings with the foreknowledge that they will "rebel", the god is intentionally creating beings with the complete knowledge that it will be punishing them and is not, in fact, trying to see that everybody recieves "joy".
...
Why? If the god knows all, what is the purpose of "bodies"?
...
I am not convinced of this god giving anybody "free will" at all. Either the god creates beings which it knows all about and what they will do or it does not. I do not see how there is a "choice" involved when the god knows what the beings will do before they do it and does nothing to stop them from experiencing danger. I am a parent. If I knew something was doing to harm my children, I would stop them. That is moral.
...
The god permitted the Jesus character to be punished in order to pay the wages for humans "sins". How is that the natural consequence of Jesus' actions? How does "repentance" play into the idea that one person who is not guilty take the punishment for those who are? That's not what I teach my children. I teach them that what you do wrong, you own up to. I think loopholes to avoid your consequences are dishonest - and immoral.
...
Which does nothing to answer the question "Why does the god need children if the god is ontologically perfect?" as in the beings who call this god their father.

At first, I started my reply by attempting to answer each of your questions individually, but I soon realised that you and I are basing our thoughts on different concepts of the nature of God, so each of our comments is taken out of context by the other person. Before we can discuss specific questions of why my beliefs do/don't make sense, we must make sure we are on the same page when it comes to the base ideas. For the purpose of this discussion, let us focus on my (LDS) beliefs specifically (remember that I am not trying to demonstrate that I am right, I am just trying to explain how it makes sense to me). All of your questions revolve around the topic of the nature of God, and his plan for his children, so I will start by summarising my beliefs about those topics. If anything doesn't make sense, please ask my to explain/expand. If you would like to repeat/reword any of your above questions, based on the context I've given, please do so.

The following is a short summary of some of my beliefs:

God is the Father of our Spirits. He is an exalted being, with an immortal body of flesh and bone. We are literally his children. We lived with him in Heaven, as spirits, before we came to earth to receive mortal bodies. God sent us to earth so that we might have the opportunity to learn and grow and develop as individuals. As our parent, he wants to teach us correct principles so that we might live our lives in such a way that will bring us joy, but he gives us the free will to chose whether or not we want to follow those principles. The decisions we make determine the type of person we become; who we become determines where we will live for eternity. There are three kingdoms of glory in Heaven. God lives in the highest kingdom of glory, and it is only there that we can attain true joy. The lower kingdoms are places of happiness and contentment. In the eternities, most people will live in one of the three kingdoms of glory--few will be sent to "outer darkness", i.e. the home of Satan, and the only place of eternal suffering.

The atonement is central to God's plan of happiness. If there had been no atonement, none of us would have been able to enter even the lowest kingdom of glory, because none of us are perfect, and no unclean thing can enter heaven. The law of justice demands that every action must bear consequences, and every sin must bear punishment. Christ volunteered to take upon him the sins of the world, in order to make it possible for us to return to Heaven.

[The Legendary Guest]

keito-ninja

The Legendary Guest

I will be blunt - LDS believe a lot of things that make little to no sense. I will not embarrass you by elaborating on how little sense, since much of what I know is not the type of thing you might want stated publicly. This is just your belief, and you have demonstrated no reason that this is correct or true outside your belief system.
...
There is absolutely nothing to support this scientifically.
...
This does not demonstrate why anybody should accept this as reasonable, accurate, true or correct. It's just an assertion.

Let me start by saying, that I am not trying to prove that my belief is correct, nor am I trying to demonstrate why anyone else should accept it as true. I am just trying to explain how my beliefs make sense to me. I am not trying to convince you of anything: my only goal is to clarify what LDS believe, because, based on your questions, you do not seem to have a clear understanding of the doctrine.

Feel free to elaborate on why my beliefs don't make sense to you--I will attempt to explain why they do make sense to me. It's possible that our conversation will devolve to: "You only think they make sense because you are ignoring logic." If it comes to that, I will probably stop trying to explain my point of view, not because I can think of no answer, but because my attempts to communicate my reasoning are not being understood.

I am not interested in a debate where the focus is trying to prove who is right/wrong; I am interested in sharing and comparing opinions so that we can both come to a better understanding of what the other person believes, and how the other person thinks.

The Legendary Guest

If the god knows you will do it, in advance, how are you truly making a choice?
...
Not unlike the statement "God has the power to do wrong if he chose, but he chooses always to only do right because of his holy nature. The same principle applies to those who are redeemed.". How can you say something like this and not know how to demonstrate what, exactly, you mean by a "holy nature"?
...
Yet the god supposedly created all beings and knows what every one of them will do.
...
In which case, he has created beings who will rebel and done nothing to change that.
...
Either the god is omiscient and knows all, including exactly what we'll do down to the minute detail, or the god is not, in fact, omniscient. If the god knows what we'll do and creates beings with the foreknowledge that they will "rebel", the god is intentionally creating beings with the complete knowledge that it will be punishing them and is not, in fact, trying to see that everybody recieves "joy".
...
Why? If the god knows all, what is the purpose of "bodies"?
...
I am not convinced of this god giving anybody "free will" at all. Either the god creates beings which it knows all about and what they will do or it does not. I do not see how there is a "choice" involved when the god knows what the beings will do before they do it and does nothing to stop them from experiencing danger. I am a parent. If I knew something was doing to harm my children, I would stop them. That is moral.
...
The god permitted the Jesus character to be punished in order to pay the wages for humans "sins". How is that the natural consequence of Jesus' actions? How does "repentance" play into the idea that one person who is not guilty take the punishment for those who are? That's not what I teach my children. I teach them that what you do wrong, you own up to. I think loopholes to avoid your consequences are dishonest - and immoral.
...
Which does nothing to answer the question "Why does the god need children if the god is ontologically perfect?" as in the beings who call this god their father.

At first, I started my reply by attempting to answer each of your questions individually, but I soon realised that you and I are basing our thoughts on different concepts of the nature of God, so each of our comments is taken out of context by the other person. Before we can discuss specific questions of why my beliefs do/don't make sense, we must make sure we are on the same page when it comes to the base ideas. For the purpose of this discussion, let us focus on my (LDS) beliefs specifically (remember that I am not trying to demonstrate that I am right, I am just trying to explain how it makes sense to me). All of your questions revolve around the topic of the nature of God, and his plan for his children, so I will start by summarising my beliefs about those topics. If anything doesn't make sense, please ask my to explain/expand. If you would like to repeat/reword any of your above questions, based on the context I've given, please do so.

The following is a short summary of some of my beliefs:

God is the Father of our Spirits. He is an exalted being, with an immortal body of flesh and bone. We are literally his children. We lived with him in Heaven, as spirits, before we came to earth to receive mortal bodies. God sent us to earth so that we might have the opportunity to learn and grow and develop as individuals. As our parent, he wants to teach us correct principles so that we might live our lives in such a way that will bring us joy, but he gives us the free will to chose whether or not we want to follow those principles. The decisions we make determine the type of person we become; who we become determines where we will live for eternity. There are three kingdoms of glory in Heaven. God lives in the highest kingdom of glory, and it is only there that we can attain true joy. The lower kingdoms are places of happiness and contentment. In the eternities, most people will live in one of the three kingdoms of glory--few will be sent to "outer darkness", i.e. the home of Satan, and the only place of eternal suffering.

The atonement is central to God's plan of happiness. If there had been no atonement, none of us would have been able to enter even the lowest kingdom of glory, because none of us are perfect, and no unclean thing can enter heaven. The law of justice demands that every action must bear consequences, and every sin must bear punishment. Christ volunteered to take upon him the sins of the world, in order to make it possible for us to return to Heaven.

I really don't think there is a way for you to explain why your beliefs are right and all other religious beliefs are wrong. Yours seem roughly an unbelievable as any other from what you've provided, and even less so from what you have not - such as when this religion was established, the way in which the person who established it claimed to have gotten his information, numerous claims in the Book of Mormon, such as the existence of planets in locations where they plainly are not.

I am not particularly interested in hearing your justifications, you are correct. I believe things that are demonstrably true, not via "faith" and thus, since you have already indicated that you do not adhere to principles of logic when deciding what to believe, there is nothing left to talk about with respect to this topic.

I hope that others will find you more interesting than I am inclined to, since you seem very willing and eager to share. I will not waste your time.