116 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I think you've got it.

P.S. Your posts are having some typographical difficulties keeping words separate. Thatcanbekindofdistracting!

nackhadlow, on 09 June 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

Rob, thank you very much for your responses. They are helpful. (Thanks to everyone else for their contributions as well, and for keeping it civil and on topic!).

Based on what you've said, here’s my attempt to correct my initial observations, withregards to your views of the standing state of all mankind, concerning Justice,  not taking into consideration acts of Mercy. Again, please correct if there is something that sounds inaccurate to your way of understanding things:

a) Adam andEve are created innocent. Due to their act of Sin (rebellion), all furtheroffspring are generated in a corrupt physical, moral, and emotional state, witha predisposition to sin.
a 1) All lifethat is conceived directly from descendants of Adam and Eve – including unbornchildren, babies, children, adults, etc – unavoidably have this corruptphysical, moral, and emotional state, with a predisposition to sin.

b) Apredisposition to sin does not mean that one is forced to sin, but indicates that practically,  they will, nevertheless, inevitably sin.

c) To sin, onemust reach an intellectual attainment of “accountability”

c-1) Thus,unborn children, young children, mentally handicapped adults are not “accountable”,and therefore, do not sin.

c-2) All whoare “accountable” will inevitably sin.

d) All who sinin their mortal life deserve some degree of Everlasting Torment.

d-1) All whoare “accountable” will inevitably deserve some degree of Everlasting Torment

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 10 June 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

P.S. Your posts are having some typographical difficulties keeping words separate. Thatcanbekindofdistracting!

Sorry. I've been composing them in Word, and then pasting them here. Apparently, it runs words together when this is done. I'll try and be more diligent in reformatting.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

PacMan, on 09 June 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

Illegitimate?  Because you say so is not a particularly stellar reason to take you at your word.  CFR.  There is no such biblical revelation that suggests anything less.

Um, I already gave biblical support for my statements. For example, I wrote that "God is merciful toward those to whom he chooses to be merciful (Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18)." If God chooses to be merciful to some and not others, then your position is false. So, I will turn your CFR back on you and ask for a biblical reference which teaches (properly read in context) that God shows mercy to every human being.

You wrote:

Quote

The only way you can come to such a backward alternative is by begging the question and completely disregarding the clear text and meaning of the most basic of biblical principles: God is equitable, perfect, just, etc.  Those are biblical principles.  Do you disagree?  See Psalms 98:9.

Yes, God is perfectly just and equitable in administering judgment. And in order to be merciful to those whom he chooses to save, God sent his Son to die on the cross to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. This allows God to be just and at the same time to justify those who are sinners but who trust in Jesus Christ as their Substitute (Rom. 3:21-26).

You wrote:

Quote

And to extend grace to one but not all is inequitable and quintessentially being a respecter of persons.  I do not understand how common sense nor the bible (if we must assume they diverge) can support anything to the contrary.

Since we're being blunt, your reasoning is just that, reasoning; it is not based on the Bible as a whole but is imposed on a few verses selectively cited out of context and pitted against the plain teaching of many passages in the Bible that God will damn some and save others. If you're going to be consistent, your position requires you to embrace universalism, according to which everyone will be saved. That isn't even LDS doctrine.

You wrote:

Quote

Furthermore, Acts is precisely on point: If God extends his mercy to all but the poor indigent locked away in a backwards country with no knowledge or understanding of God by which to obey or otherwise believe/accept God, his damnation is constructively due to God withholding salvation from him.

Appeal to pity alert!

Evidently, you do not think this "poor indigent locked away in a backwards country" deserves condemnation. Is that right? You need to make up your mind about this. If he deserves condemnation, then God is not unfair to give it to him. If he does not deserve condemnation, then "salvation" is not mercy but simply what he deserves.

You wrote:

Quote

Regarding your hypothetical of Kuku, I don’t understand how you get around baptism.  Last time I checked, Jesus didn’t qualify John 3:5.  [Talk about supplanting the bible for “theological deductions.”]  Tu quo que.

Last time I checked, Jesus didn't actually mention baptism in John 3:5. And while we're talking about lack of qualifications in the text, even assuming that the "water" in John 3:5 denotes baptism, Jesus also didn't tell Nicodemus that if he didn't get baptized no worries because one of his descendants could get baptized on his behalf.

You wrote:

Quote

Moreover, your example using the Jehovah’s Witness is fundamentally Pharisaic.  Last time I checked, the Bible didn’t qualify the “saving doctrines” that one had to get right.  I find that arrogantly presumptuous…particularly if the JW “genuinely” believes those doctrines and is following them to the best of his/her ability.  Again, who are you to say what is “essential?”  Walking 30 steps, 40 step, of 100 steps on the Sabbath?  Whether one practices the tradition of Christmas, or accepts blood-transfusions?  I could make my own of absurdum questions and example, but I think your list is much better.

Huh?

For a reductio ad absurdum to work, it has to be based on a correct understanding of the starting point. You're a country mile off. Read my comments about Andrea and Cal and try again.

[David T]

Quote

Quote

d) All who sin in their mortal life deserve some degree of Everlasting Torment.

I think you've got it.

Rob, is there a biblical explanation you are aware of which explains (and perhaps comforts and makes sense to you) why any single instance of sin or series of sins committed in this short earth life justly deserves some degree of everlasting torment that will not ever be reprieved? One that perhaps goes beyond "Because God decreed it to be Just"?

Edited by nackhadlow, 10 June 2011 - 10:48 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You asked:

nackhadlow, on 10 June 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

Rob, is there a biblical explanation you are aware of which explains (and perhaps comforts and makes sense to you) why any single instance of sin or series of sins committed in this short earth life justly deserves some degree of everlasting torment that will not ever be reprieved? One that perhaps goes beyond "Because God decreed it to be Just"?

I'd like to ask you to make this a bit more of a dialogue and offer something about your own beliefs, rather than have this be an investigation into Rob Bowman's beliefs only. Is it your position that no one is going to suffer eternal punishment? If you agree that some beings will suffer eternal punishment, what will be the basis for that judgment, in your opinion? Let's find out how far apart we are before going further.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 10 June 2011 - 12:59 PM.

[Pa Pa]

nackhadlow, on 10 June 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

Sorry. I've been composing them in Word, and then pasting them here. Apparently, it runs words together when this is done. I'll try and be more diligent in reformatting.

Misspelling words is my turf; Back off!  

[mfbukowski]

If the God of the Bible is not compassionate, and billions will suffer everlasting torment because they have followed their own inbred tendency to sin,  it again raises the question - to me at least- of how one knows the Bible is true, if indeed that is what the Bible teaches.

To me this is contrary to reason for a God who is perfectly compassionate to create such a situation;  if the Biblical God is contrary to reason, why should we believe any of  the Bible at all?

It is always this one question which to me, has never been answered.  How can we know that the Bible, which supposedly, according to Mr. Bowman, teaches such doctrine, is true- when it is contrary to reasonable standards of justice?

In a court of law, we recognize that those who "cannot do otherwise" (in this case, sin) are treated differently from those who are fully accountable.

I suppose that is the question then: how can one be "accountable" for sin if it is part of their nature?

Those for whom murder is "part of their nature" (in modern English,  I suppose that would include those whom we call "criminally insane") are judged "not guilty by reason of insanity" because of what we might term their "inherent sinful nature" using Biblical language.

So if sin is part of our nature, then how can we be condemned justly to eternal punishment for doing what comes naturally?

Edited by mfbukowski, 10 June 2011 - 12:43 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

mfbukowski, on 10 June 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

If the God of the Bible is not compassionate, and billions will suffer everlasting torment because they have followed their own inbred tendency to sin,  it again raises the question - to me at least- of how one knows the Bible is true, if indeed that is what the Bible teaches.

To me this is contrary to reason for a God who is perfectly compassionate to create such a situation;  if the Biblical God is contrary to reason, why should we believe any of  the Bible at all?

It is always this one question which to me, has never been answered.  How can we know that the Bible, which supposedly, according to Mr. Bowman, teaches such doctrine, is true- when it is contrary to reasonable standards of justice?

If you require the Bible to agree with your sense of justice and reason in order to accept it, then you are making yourself the authority. God himself could appear to you, First-Vision style, and tell you that many people will suffer eternal punishment, and you would still (to be consistent with what you have said) reject it.

Based on past experience with you, I'm afraid that nothing I say will convince you that the Bible is true, or even that I have answered your question. And you clearly do not believe the Bible is true. If you did, you would simply dispute my understanding of what the Bible says, instead of questioning how one knows the Bible is true.

I can tell you that your objections are based on a distortion of what I have said. Thus, you wrote:

Quote

In a court of law, we recognize that those who "cannot do otherwise" (in this case, sin) are treated differently from those who are fully accountable.

I suppose that is the question then: how can one be "accountable" for sin if it is part of their nature?

Those for whom murder is "part of their nature" (in modern English,  I suppose that would include those whom we call "criminally insane") are judged "not guilty by reason of insanity" because of what we might term their "inherent sinful nature" using Biblical language.

So if sin is part of our nature, then how can we be condemned justly to eternal punishment for doing what comes naturally?

I was very clear that human beings are responsible and accountable for their actions. Precisely because I knew that Mormons would interpret the expression "sinful nature" to imply that people cannot be accountable for doing what is their very nature, I did not use such language. In the sense you mean it, sin is not "part of our nature." It is a disorder that adversely corrupts human nature. Human nature in and of itself is good, created by God. However, human nature is corrupt because of the fall.

If there is nothing wrong with us, as your line of critique presupposes, you have an even more difficult question to answer. If we're not morally or spiritually corrupt and inclined to sin, how is it that billions of people have lived and died and not one, other than Jesus Christ, managed to live to responsible adulthood without ever sinning? You would think that the odds would be in favor of at least a few million people managing to avoid committing any sins.

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 10 June 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

nackhadlow,

You asked:

I'd like to ask you to make this a bit more of a dialogue and offer something about your own beliefs, rather than have this be an investigation into Rob Bowman's beliefs only. Is it your position that no one is going to suffer eternal punishment? If you agree that some beings will suffer eternal punishment, what will be the basis for that judgment, in your opinion? Let's find out how far apart we are before going further.

Gotcha. I will present my beliefs here, but I don't desire this thread to turn into a 'what do Mormons really and officially teach and believe', or even a compare and contrast thread.  In fact, I don't desire this to be a debate thread, but more of a prologue or prelude to further discussion. Because of your unique interactions, I thought it would be beneficial to have your beliefs and explanations (and presuppositions) clearly presented in in your own words - and explained -  for reference, without getting bogged down by ad hominem, and to help dissuade needless repetition, and further strawmen attacks.  If that makes any sense. I kind of like the idea of this being an interview with you, where insults are not tolerated, and removed when recognized. I do think it has been helpful, and has helped cleared up some misconceptions as to what you actually believe, and what your assumptions are. I think some ideas raised here can serve as great jumping off points for other threads.

I do feel that Evangelical views are often torn down before they're properly understood and explained, which makes a great deal of the so-called 'dialogue' that occurs here meaningless, and unproductive.

However, Rob, I understand if you are uncomfortable with the focus, and do not want to continue to participate. If so, let me know, and I will close the thread.

Edited by nackhadlow, 10 June 2011 - 02:05 PM.

[mfbukowski]

I apologize if  my response is not "feely-touchy" and politically correct enough for this thread, but I feel I must defend myself.

I will be as "nice-nice" as I can muster in the face of misrepresentation of what I believe.

Rob Bowman, on 10 June 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

If you require the Bible to agree with your sense of justice and reason in order to accept it, then you are making yourself the authority. God himself could appear to you, First-Vision style, and tell you that many people will suffer eternal punishment, and you would still (to be consistent with what you have said) reject it.

I beg to differ.  You know nothing about what I would or would not accept from spiritual experiences I have had.   In fact, my entire testimony is based on spiritual experiences- and I would certainly not share them with you.

Quote

Based on past experience with you, I'm afraid that nothing I say will convince you that the Bible is true, or even that I have answered your question. And you clearly do not believe the Bible is true. If you did, you would simply dispute my understanding of what the Bible says, instead of questioning how one knows the Bible is true.

I most certainly affirm that the "Bible is true" based on my own spiritual experiences.  It is my feeling that you have refused to engage me on how one is to know it is true- but you repeatedly say that you feel you have engaged me on it.  The record will show which is correct should anyone care to research it.

Quote

I can tell you that your objections are based on a distortion of what I have said. Thus, you wrote:

If I have distorted what you said, I genuinely apologize.  I think my objection stands; if you feel you would like to re-explain it in other terms, I would like to hear what you have to say.

Quote

I was very clear that human beings are responsible and accountable for their actions. Precisely because I knew that Mormons would interpret the expression "sinful nature" to imply that people cannot be accountable for doing what is their very nature, I did not use such language. In the sense you mean it, sin is not "part of our nature." It is a disorder that adversely corrupts human nature. Human nature in and of itself is good, created by God. However, human nature is corrupt because of the fall.

I fail to comprehend how one can refer to  a "disorder" as afflicting ALL of mankind; either it is "normal" or "not normal", natural or not natural.   "Disorder" is something OTHER than what is normal- a disorder afflicting everyone is not a disorder at all.   I fail to see how human nature can be both good and corrupt at the same time.  Please explain.

Quote

If there is nothing wrong with us, as your line of critique presupposes, you have an even more difficult question to answer. If we're not morally or spiritually corrupt and inclined to sin, how is it that billions of people have lived and died and not one, other than Jesus Christ, managed to live to responsible adulthood without ever sinning? You would think that the odds would be in favor of at least a few million people managing to avoid committing any sins.

I never said we were not inclined to sin; my theology explains that clearly and gives us all a chance at redemption, my assertion is that yours does not give us all a chance at redemption and I believe you have acknowledged as much, and in fact says that "God may not have given billions an opportunity to be saved" as per the OP

Of course I could be mistaken about all this.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

mfbukowski, on 10 June 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

I beg to differ.  You know nothing about what I would or would not accept from spiritual experiences I have had.   In fact, my entire testimony is based on spiritual experiences- and I would certainly not share them with you.

I'm not asking you to do so. But what is the difference between accepting something that God says in Scripture and something that God says in a vision? If, as you said, you cannot believe what the Bible says if it doesn't fit your sense or reason or justice, why would you believe what you heard in a vision?

You said:

Quote

I most certainly affirm that the "Bible is true" based on my own spiritual experiences.  It is my feeling that you have refused to engage me on how one is to know it is true- but you repeatedly say that you feel you have engaged me on it.  The record will show which is correct should anyone care to research it.

If you agree with me that the Bible is true, then we really have no need to argue about it, do we? Why don't we build on that agreement as common ground, if indeed you do believe that the Bible is true?

You wrote:

Quote

If I have distorted what you said, I genuinely apologize.  I think my objection stands; if you feel you would like to re-explain it in other terms, I would like to hear what you have to say.

I have already done so.

You wrote:

Quote

I fail to comprehend how one can refer to  a "disorder" as afflicting ALL of mankind; either it is "normal" or "not normal", natural or not natural.   "Disorder" is something OTHER than what is normal- a disorder afflicting everyone is not a disorder at all.   I fail to see how human nature can be both good and corrupt at the same time.  Please explain.

God created it good, but it has since been corrupted by the fall. Being human is good; being inclined to sin and being mortal are bad. If the whole human race was afflicted with cancer, it would not be "normal," but it would still be universal. It would be a disorder that exists in all people. That is what sin is like.

You wrote:

Quote

I never said we were not inclined to sin; my theology explains that clearly and gives us all a chance at redemption, my assertion is that yours does not give us all a chance at redemption and I believe you have acknowledged as much, and in fact says that "God may not have given billions an opportunity to be saved" as per the OP

Of course I could be mistaken about all this.

That was nackhadlow's wording, not mine. It depends on what one means by "opportunity." It may be that everyone gets an opportunity but some people get a better opportunity than others. For example, it is a better opportunity to hear the gospel when you're five years old than when you're seventy-five, because by the time you're seventy-five you may be so hardened that you are far less open to the gospel. Is God obliged to give everyone the same opportunity? I don't see why, and I don't see how he could make good on such an obligation.

I'm glad you agree that human beings are inclined to sin. Do you agree that people deserve to be punished for their sins even though they were inclined to sin?

[David T]

If you wish to continue them, please take discussions of reasons for or against believing the Bible, other scriptures, revelations, etc elsewhere.

I would also like to ask that questions that are on topic are asked  with the assumption that the subject actually does honestly and sincerely and intellectually and faithfully believe the things they've professed, and that they do have an answer, explanation as to why they believe that way. Every question I have asked has not been intended as a "gotcha", but as an honest attempt to understand, and to have those explanations available to many who have an interest in further productive dialogue with Evangelicals such as Rob.

Edited by nackhadlow, 10 June 2011 - 02:14 PM.

[CV75]

Before the thread gets closed, would someone please explain to me:

Why the Hindu in post #25/27 is not  given an opportunity to know what the Israelite knows sometime after his  mortal life and before his judgment, or why God would not thus extend  an opportunity for full mercy to him, so that he might then opt to  receive it (full mercy translating into the highest degree of reward;  partial mercy translating into “degrees of reward.”). I'm thinking of 1  Peter 3 and 4 scriptures about Christ preaching to the dead after their  time in this life is over.

Also, (referencing Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18), I do not understand how  God’s choices do not reflect compliance with His designs for and  promises to all humanity (Romans 5: 11-21, where the full blessings of  the Atonement are at least accomplished by Christ and extended to “all  men.”).     

Thank you--

edit: (Asked in the spirit of post #52)

Edited by CV75, 10 June 2011 - 02:12 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I approach theological issues from the foundation of the Bible as the word of God and the authoritative source for Christian doctrine. I find in the Bible that some beings, including the devil, his angels, and unredeemed humans, will suffer eternal punishment. My theological reflections proceed from the teaching given to us in the Bible, as best I can understand it.

To be frank, I don't know how Hell will be experienced and have every intention of not finding out. Although the wicked will suffer eternal punishment, it may be that this will not be experienced as a temporally linear yet endless series of distinct experiences of torment, one after another, ad infinitum. Eternal punishment is a state of eternal ruination in which the whole person is decimated or destroyed (but not annihilated), suffering eternal loss and utter darkness. It will be more or less painful depending on the extent of a person's sins, so that whatever it is like the punishment will fit the crime. Beyond that it is very difficult to comment without engaging in speculation. However, the Bible is clear that the punishment is eternal. It is true that we only live a finite amount of time in this mortal life, but sin against God is not quantifiable like stealing just so much money. Sin is a repudiation of the Creator of all things by a creature that was created and designed to exist forever. Apart from divine redemption, the fate of such a creature who sins against his Creator is that his endless existence will become endless loss, endless hopelessness, endless separation from the Creator. Is this just? I think so, but I don't trust my intuitions about what is just. Instead, I defer to God's revelation in Scripture.

nackhadlow, on 10 June 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

Gotcha. I will present my beliefs here, but I don't desire this thread to turn into a 'what do Mormons really and officially teach and believe', or even a compare and contrast thread.  In fact, I don't desire this to be a debate thread, but more of a prologue or prelude to further discussion. Because of your unique interactions, I thought it would be beneficial to have your beliefs and explanations (and presuppositions) clearly presented in in your own words - and explained -  for reference, without getting bogged down by ad hominem, and to help dissuade needless repetition, and further strawmen attacks.  If that makes any sense. I kind of like the idea of this being an interview with you, where insults are not tolerated, and removed when recognized. I do think it has been helpful, and has helped cleared up some misconceptions as to what you actually believe, and what your assumptions are. I think some ideas raised here can serve as great jumping off points for other threads.

I do feel that Evangelical views are often torn down before they're properly understood and explained, which makes a great deal of the so-called 'dialogue' that occurs here meaningless, and unproductive.

However, Rob, I understand if you are uncomfortable with the focus, and do not want to continue to participate. If so, let me know, and I will close the thread.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

I can comment on your questions later.

CV75, on 10 June 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

Before the thread gets closed, would someone please explain to me:

Why the Hindu in post #25/27 is not  given an opportunity to know what the Israelite knows sometime after his  mortal life and before his judgment, or why God would not thus extend  an opportunity for full mercy to him, so that he might then opt to  receive it (full mercy translating into the highest degree of reward;  partial mercy translating into “degrees of reward.”). I'm thinking of 1  Peter 3 and 4 scriptures about Christ preaching to the dead after their  time in this life is over.

Also, (referencing Exod. 33:19; Rom. 9:15, 18), I do not understand how  God’s choices do not reflect compliance with His designs for and  promises to all humanity (Romans 5: 11-21, where the full blessings of  the Atonement are at least accomplished by Christ and extended to “all  men.”).         

Thank you--

edit: (Asked in the spirit of post #52)

[mfbukowski]

nackhadlow, on 10 June 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

If you wish to continue them, please take discussions of reasons for or against believing the Bible, other scriptures, revelations, etc elsewhere.

I would also like to ask that questions that are on topic are asked  with the assumption that the subject actually does honestly and sincerely and intellectually and faithfully believe the things they've professed, and that they do have an answer, explanation as to why they believe that way. Every question I have asked has not been intended as a "gotcha", but as an honest attempt to understand, and to have those explanations available to many who have an interest in further productive dialogue with Evangelicals such as Rob.

Just for the record, I certainly agree to these terms.

[David T]

Here's a thread I created (and will not seek to moderate that may address some of the side issues, and all should feel free to chime in on uninhibited: Who Are You To God? Slave? Child? Spouse? All?

[David T]

Thanks, Rob.

Rob Bowman, on 10 June 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

nackhadlow,

I approach theological issues from the foundation of the Bible as the word of God and the authoritative source for Christian doctrine. I find in the Bible that some beings, including the devil, his angels, and unredeemed humans, will suffer eternal punishment. My theological reflections proceed from the teaching given to us in the Bible, as best I can understand it.

To be frank, I don't know how Hell will be experienced and have every intention of not finding out. Although the wicked will suffer eternal punishment, it may be that this will not be experienced as a temporally linear yet endless series of distinct experiences of torment, one after another, ad infinitum. Eternal punishment is a state of eternal ruination in which the whole person is decimated or destroyed (but not annihilated), suffering eternal loss and utter darkness. It will be more or less painful depending on the extent of a person's sins, so that whatever it is like the punishment will fit the crime. Beyond that it is very difficult to comment without engaging in speculation. However, the Bible is clear that the punishment is eternal. It is true that we only live a finite amount of time in this mortal life, but sin against God is not quantifiable like stealing just so much money. Sin is a repudiation of the Creator of all things by a creature that was created and designed to exist forever. Apart from divine redemption, the fate of such a creature who sins against his Creator is that his endless existence will become endless loss, endless hopelessness, endless separation from the Creator. Is this just? I think so, but I don't trust my intuitions about what is just. Instead, I defer to God's revelation in Scripture.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 10 June 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

I'm not asking you to do so. But what is the difference between accepting something that God says in Scripture and something that God says in a vision? If, as you said, you cannot believe what the Bible says if it doesn't fit your sense or reason or justice, why would you believe what you heard in a vision?

I have agreed not to pursue this line of questioning, but to clarify a misrepresentation of my position, I will just answer briefly and  then let it go.  I never said I had a "vision", I said I had an "experience".   The difference between accepting the Bible because it asserts that it is the word of God and accepting it because one knows- first hand- that it is true is that in the first case, one is accepting blindly a book for what it asserts- and all scriptures, Hindu Muslim, Zorastrian etc ALL assert they are "true"- the question is which really IS true.   I have tried to discuss this with you many times, but will not pursue it further on this thread unless you again bring it up again; I am certain you will not however.  It's ironic that you now bring it up since we have been specifically prohibited from discussing it further.

Quote

If you agree with me that the Bible is true, then we really have no need to argue about it, do we? Why don't we build on that agreement as common ground, if indeed you do believe that the Bible is true?

I would be happy to do that; it is our interpretations which differ.

Quote

God created it good, but it has since been corrupted by the fall. Being human is good; being inclined to sin and being mortal are bad. If the whole human race was afflicted with cancer, it would not be "normal," but it would still be universal. It would be a disorder that exists in all people. That is what sin is like.

Yes, but it seems you are missing the point.  <edit- I changed the next sentence- I left out a "not">  If we were all afflicted with cancer, would you think it fair that  all but those who failed to cure themselves would suffer eternal torment for having cancer?

Quote

That was nackhadlow's wording, not mine. It depends on what one means by "opportunity." It may be that everyone gets an opportunity but some people get a better opportunity than others. For example, it is a better opportunity to hear the gospel when you're five years old than when you're seventy-five, because by the time you're seventy-five you may be so hardened that you are far less open to the gospel. Is God obliged to give everyone the same opportunity? I don't see why, and I don't see how he could make good on such an obligation.

Well of course, I believe that the LDS view in fact does just that- it gives everyone the same fair opportunity to hear the gospel,  if not on this earth, then on the other side, as well as receiving all the ordinances of the gospel.

And as far as God giving all the same opportunity, surely you understand that even in human justice systems, those with diminished "opportunity" to do good are judged differently than others.   Clearly those who cannot control themselves for whatever reason are not judged or punished the same as those who have a full opportunity to do otherwise.

That is clear even for humans in a court of law- should it not be infinitely more clear from God who is infinitely more just than we are?  

I'm glad you agree that human beings are inclined to sin. Do you agree that people deserve to be punished for their sins even though they were inclined to sin?

I wish all to know I have no personal animosity toward Rob at all.

Edited by mfbukowski, 10 June 2011 - 03:10 PM.

[Vance]

Moved to new thread.

Edited by Vance, 10 June 2011 - 03:18 PM.