Jump to content

Inclusivity


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

Clark County?  Me?  No, I live in Cowlitz county Washington.  It is just north of a county called Clark county in Washington, though.  I don't understand why you referred to me as a Clark County Amboy, or any kind of  Amboy. ?

I also don't know the stadium you refer to as Mc___ Stadium.   I live in SW Washington if that's the neck of woods you are talking about and I am pleased that you talked to me too.

Yeah I was, but I still may not know what you are thinking about in regards to that thread.  I was forthright when sharing my views though, as I usually am, so I think you should have caught on to what I thought of Navidad's comments if you read what I wrote to him.

I think you and I do agree a lot about our perspective on this, even though we do not agree on which church is the one true church of Jesus Christ.  But at least we both believe there is only one true church of Jesus Christ and it does not include any church which is not that one.  So yeah, sure, we agree on this much.  And it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Navidad agrees with us on this idea too.  I think he just thinks about the one true church of Christ differently than we do, thinking it includes every church which claims to be a church of Jesus Christ... whether that church calls itself a Baptist church, or a Mennonite church, or whatever other name it may be called or known by.  

I think even devils can be nice if by nice you mean polite or having good manners.  People who are nice to others are not necessarily seeking to improve the welfare of others. Hannibal Lecter was portayed as a nice guy.

I say what I say to try to help people.  Truly I do.

But you have heard of Amboy...You must be in Woodland...you are not in Kalama?...Anyway...nevermind about all that. I miss Kelso/Longview and Woodland and Exit 49, Castle Rock, good truck stop. I am a little obsessed about home now. I lived there a long time and love it and miss it. I am so sorry about the fires. A daughter is in Vancouver still. Her pictures remind me of when Mt. St. Helens blew. I saw a van with Oregon plates in the church parking lot on Sunday as I left the 9:15 Mass here in nowhere, Kansas. They were probably already parked for the 11:30. I am a little ashamed to feel an affinity for Oregon; I shouldn't like Oregon...because I am Washingtonian...friendly rivalry...like Dominicans and Franciscans. But I have to admit an affinity. I almost went back to see who they were after breakfast, thinking we would be friends...mutual acquaintances perhaps. I did good. I did not go back. Just homesick. They would have taken me for the weirdo I am! Heh.

I believe and  agree with the rest of what you say Ahab about the other thread. Truly I do. God bless.

3DOP   

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

am so sorry about the fires.

Seeing a state map with all the fires marked is unsettling. 
 

Doesn’t help I keep hearing the helicopter that is perhaps still dumping water on hot spots on the mountain I see out our front windows. Fire lasted half a day as we lucked out with some light rain and missed out on the hurricane winds that took out so many trees up north. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

But you have heard of Amboy...You must be in Woodland...you are not in Kalama?...Anyway...nevermind about all that. I miss Kelso/Longview and Woodland and Exit 49, Castle Rock, good truck stop. I am a little obsessed about home now. I lived there a long time and love it and miss it. I am so sorry about the fires. A daughter is in Vancouver still. Her pictures remind me of when Mt. St. Helens blew. I saw a van with Oregon plates in the church parking lot on Sunday as I left the 9:15 Mass here in nowhere, Kansas. They were probably already parked for the 11:30. I am a little ashamed to feel an affinity for Oregon; I shouldn't like Oregon...because I am Washingtonian...friendly rivalry...like Dominicans and Franciscans. But I have to admit an affinity. I almost went back to see who they were after breakfast, thinking we would be friends...mutual acquaintances perhaps. I did good. I did not go back. Just homesick. They would have taken me for the weirdo I am! Heh.

I believe and  agree with the rest of what you say Ahab about the other thread. Truly I do. God bless.

3DOP   

 

Yep, Kalama, exit 30 off of I-5, for a little while longer.  I moved up here from Gresham Oregon about 14 years ago, after moving to Oregon in 1989,  and will be moving back to Oregon soon, to the Beaverton area near the Nike campus.  I've loved living up here, on 2 acres with a nice view of the Columbia river as it goes by to Longview, but my family/children need some financial assistance and God told me the best way to help them was to move in with the son who is still single while giving some money to the other son and his wife for their equity in that house where the single son is now living.  The 2 brothers had bought the house together while they were both single and the married one recently bought another house with his new wife and they need to get out of that mortgage, so my wife and I are essentially buying him out.  Plus the other son who still lives in the first house can't afford to pay the mortgage on his own and he still wants to live there instead of selling and the married son and his wife will be having a baby soon and we want to be closer to them too.  The house they are buying is just a few houses down the street from the other son's house so we will all be closer this way.  If I was rich with money I would be tempted to stay here in Kalama, only about an hour to drive to Beaverton, but I think it will be better for all of us to live closer together.  We'll add on to what will be our new home so it will be nicer for everybody.

And no. I have never heard of Amboy.  I'm originally from Texas and have lived in other states but have never heard of an Amboy.  I googled Amboy and see that there is one in California but I doubt that is what you are talking about.

And yes the smoke is terrible.  Please ask God to get rid of the smoke soon.  It's ruining our view from our house and will make our house not as easy to sell.  The market is hot though so we may be able to sell for a good price anyway.,

 

 

p.s.  Okay I googled Clark County Amboy and see what I think you mean now.  I think I've even driven by a sign to Amboy a few times while on my way to the Cougar area to ride quads.  Are you from there?

Edited by Ahab
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 9/16/2020 at 5:05 PM, Ahab said:

Yep, Kalama, exit 30 off of I-5, for a little while longer.  I moved up here from Gresham Oregon about 14 years ago, after moving to Oregon in 1989,  and will be moving back to Oregon soon, to the Beaverton area near the Nike campus.  I've loved living up here, on 2 acres with a nice view of the Columbia river as it goes by to Longview, but my family/children need some financial assistance and God told me the best way to help them was to move in with the son who is still single while giving some money to the other son and his wife for their equity in that house where the single son is now living.  The 2 brothers had bought the house together while they were both single and the married one recently bought another house with his new wife and they need to get out of that mortgage, so my wife and I are essentially buying him out.  Plus the other son who still lives in the first house can't afford to pay the mortgage on his own and he still wants to live there instead of selling and the married son and his wife will be having a baby soon and we want to be closer to them too.  The house they are buying is just a few houses down the street from the other son's house so we will all be closer this way.  If I was rich with money I would be tempted to stay here in Kalama, only about an hour to drive to Beaverton, but I think it will be better for all of us to live closer together.  We'll add on to what will be our new home so it will be nicer for everybody.

And no. I have never heard of Amboy.  I'm originally from Texas and have lived in other states but have never heard of an Amboy.  I googled Amboy and see that there is one in California but I doubt that is what you are talking about.

And yes the smoke is terrible.  Please ask God to get rid of the smoke soon.  It's ruining our view from our house and will make our house not as easy to sell.  The market is hot though so we may be able to sell for a good price anyway.,

 

 

p.s.  Okay I googled Clark County Amboy and see what I think you mean now.  I think I've even driven by a sign to Amboy a few times while on my way to the Cougar area to ride quads.  Are you from there?

Hi Ahab,

I grew up in what is now East Vancouver. It was dairy country and we were dairy farmers. Somehow, from other threads, I got the idea you were in our county. I got it right that you were to the north, but a little further north. Living along I-5, I can see how you could be from Texas, with a house in Kalama for 14 years, work in Beaverton, and never hear of Amboy, WA. Maybe you have never been to La Center, Battle Ground, or Ridgefield either, although I know you have seen the signs from the freeway.

We are now the newcomers in an area. It seems like I am always confessing how I do not know where a particular place is.

See you around.

Rory 

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 9/20/2020 at 8:14 AM, 3DOP said:

Hi Ahab,

I grew up in what is now East Vancouver. It was dairy country and we were dairy farmers. Somehow, from other threads, I got the idea you were in our county. I got it right that you were to the north, but a little further north. Living along I-5, I can see how you could be from Texas, with a house in Kalama for 14 years, work in Beaverton, and never hear of Amboy, WA. Maybe you have never been to La Center, Battle Ground, or Ridgefield either, although I know you have seen the signs from the freeway.

We are now the newcomers in an area. It seems like I am always confessing how I do not know where a particular place is.

See you around.

Rory 

Just to clear up a few details, I work in Portland for the City of Portland and didn't recall a town named Amboy because it is a tiny little town way way back in the woods and I have never been through it.  I've been through LaCenter a few times though, they have a nice little bakery there, and Ridgefield, the nearest Parr lumberyard is there, and Battleground too, all; 3 of which are much larger towns than Amboy and closer to where I go shopping.  Camas WA has grown quite a bit over the years and you would probably notice the improvements if you were to come back again.  I'm very familiar with Beaverton now because that is where my 2 sons live now and I have spent a lot of time there over the years.  And I'll be moving back there probably sometime within the next few months.

Link to post
On 9/13/2020 at 3:01 PM, 3DOP said:

Is the truth to be determined by its inclusivity? I could argue that the Catholic faith is inclusive. Truly. While there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, we are also instructed with all earnestness that we cannot know that any particular person is in Hell. There are extra-sacramental means for those who are not members of the Church to be saved by the Church. But I don't want to try to prove that we are inclusive. What difference does it make for our truth claims? It is all about perspective anyway. We are exclusive in some respects, and inclusive in others. But I do not see anywhere that anybody should win a prize for being the most inclusive in every respect. I do not see why anybody should be afraid to be understood as exclusive in many respects.

I am wondering where any of us here are told, by authority we accept, that we can identify the true religion by the standard of which religion is most inclusive. At most, we know that the most inclusive religion is the one we hope is true if we are in the wrong religion. Maybe I should talk about wide roads and narrow roads and where they lead. Is "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me," inclusive? Let's quit trying to be the nicest religion. Would any of our founders have been trying to be the nicest? Not even those "churches" that thought to replace Rome were founded by people trying to be inclusive (nice). Being nice does not create the kind of motivational zeal that it takes to try to start a religious organization. The standard of being nice comes slower for some, Catholic and LDS?, faster for others ("churches" that try to replace Rome).  

If I was wrong about the Catholic faith (mind you this is a mere thought experiment), I would hope that the LDS message is true. The only good reason the "churches" that tried to replace Rome could have for making the attempt, is if the belief and practice of the Catholic faith leads to damnation. The only reason these people in those "churches" are supposedly inclusive of Catholic people, is because there might be Catholic people who reject Catholic teaching and practice. If I was wrong, I would not benefit from that kind of defective inclusivity. I believe everything the Catholic Church teaches, including the Gospel that is condemned as false by the "churches" that tried to replace Rome. That means I believe in indulgences, the veneration of the Virgin Mary, the treasury of the Saints, statues, icons, purgatory, faith and works for salvation, and any other doctrine that these "churches" that tried to replace Rome holds to be abominable. Protestant/Mennonite/Anabaptist inclusivity for Catholics must be logically limited to those who are Catholic in name only. If I was wrong in my faith, given the choice, I would opt for LDS inclusivity.     

This, of course, is the biggest problem with all of religion.  If there be a loving God then any religion, all religion or no religion would not matter.  If there be a God who hopes or knows that some will be in hell of whatever sort (like LDS' Terrestrial and Telestial lands), then what is such a god anyway?  A jealous one?  A hostile one?  A ignorant one?  A one who lacks compassion...one who lacks the ability to reach another...one who lacks success?  

What does it matter if one does not ascent to the correct words in the end?  Or one fails to accept a mundane ordinance?  What should matter is whether God has used his resources to teach each and everyone, embracing their ways, and forgiving their inborn weaknesses.  

My problem with religion?  They have made GOd a fool and then turn around and threaten everyone for not embracing the fool.  

Link to post
On 9/13/2020 at 11:01 PM, 3DOP said:

I am wondering where any of us here are told, by authority we accept, that we can identify the true religion by the standard of which religion is most inclusive. At most, we know that the most inclusive religion is the one we hope is true if we are in the wrong religion. Maybe I should talk about wide roads and narrow roads and where they lead. Is "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me," inclusive? Let's quit trying to be the nicest religion. Would any of our founders have been trying to be the nicest? Not even those "churches" that thought to replace Rome were founded by people trying to be inclusive (nice). Being nice does not create the kind of motivational zeal that it takes to try to start a religious organization. The standard of being nice comes slower for some, Catholic and LDS?, faster for others ("churches" that try to replace Rome).  

True religion would receive guidance from Him whom it purports to worship and the expectation is that we worship a living being thus the Lord will direct according to the times and His will - the founders would not be welcome in today's world (of both religions), they were suited to their times; a religion that serves a living God would therefore always be inclusive but the true test of true-ness (imv): is sacrifice. Said Joseph Smith: Lecture 6:7: "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation". If we accept this to be true then the very sacrifice of one's "things" is the exclusivity that is required; the leaders of religion today are nice (inclusive), is it not because they are directed so to be? And if so, should we not also be nice and trust that it will be a sufficient motivational zeal? I'm not sure. I think we'd have to define 'nice' - if 'nice' means meek, then yes we should be nice; meek people aren't weak people, they're strong people, brave people who choose to be 'nice' rather than to be unkind; also meek people can disagree even with their leaders when its appropriate to do so and in an appropriate manner.

  • Like 1
Link to post
44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This, of course, is the biggest problem with all of religion.  If there be a loving God then any religion, all religion or no religion would not matter.  If there be a God who hopes or knows that some will be in hell of whatever sort (like LDS' Terrestrial and Telestial lands), then what is such a god anyway?  A jealous one?  A hostile one?  A ignorant one?  A one who lacks compassion...one who lacks the ability to reach another...one who lacks success?  

What does it matter if one does not ascent to the correct words in the end?  Or one fails to accept a mundane ordinance?  What should matter is whether God has used his resources to teach each and everyone, embracing their ways, and forgiving their inborn weaknesses.  

My problem with religion?  They have made GOd a fool and then turn around and threaten everyone for not embracing the fool.  

"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee:" sounds very similar to "If there be a loving God then any religion, all religion or no religion would not matter." The insidious 'if'; if there is a God then why...? or religion is true then shouldn't it...? or the very popular "if there was a God then why does he allow suffering?" Well my view is 'if' there was a God then he wouldn't be taking advice from a mere mortal like me nor would I dare to counsel him; furthermore, it is hoped that anyone who seeks to learn of God should seek such knowledge for themselves after careful study and prayer and to seek a divine confirmation with a real intent to know and with a sincere heart; without meeting these conditions: I don't think anyone can ever know, not though he saw an angel.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 9/22/2020 at 4:59 PM, stemelbow said:

This, of course, is the biggest problem with all of religion.  If there be a loving God then any religion, all religion or no religion would not matter.  If there be a God who hopes or knows that some will be in hell of whatever sort (like LDS' Terrestrial and Telestial lands), then what is such a god anyway?  A jealous one?  A hostile one?  A ignorant one?  A one who lacks compassion...one who lacks the ability to reach another...one who lacks success?  

What does it matter if one does not ascent to the correct words in the end?  Or one fails to accept a mundane ordinance?  What should matter is whether God has used his resources to teach each and everyone, embracing their ways, and forgiving their inborn weaknesses.  

My problem with religion?  They have made GOd a fool and then turn around and threaten everyone for not embracing the fool.  

Hi stemelbow,

You said regarding three paragraphs that I wrote, "This, of course, is the biggest problem with all of religion."

I am not going to object if you were simply using my post as a springboard to voice your misgivings "with all of religion". No clarification requested if that is all this is. I would be willing to try to answer your objections anyway if you should like. But I would not be inclined to make any response without further prompting.    

However, if you were speaking to something specific in the three paragraph post which you quoted, I would like to try to make a cogent reply. If this be the case, clarify for me if you will what "This" is, that I should try to address, that according to you, follows as a matter of course, being "the biggest problem with all religion". Forgive me, I feel an obligation when someone quotes me to have the courtesy to reply, but I am also perhaps obtuse in failing to see much connection with what I said and what you said. 

Regards,

3DOP

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 9/26/2020 at 4:43 PM, 3DOP said:

Hi stemelbow,

You said regarding three paragraphs that I wrote, "This, of course, is the biggest problem with all of religion."

I am not going to object if you were simply using my post as a springboard to voice your misgivings "with all of religion". No clarification requested if that is all this is. I would be willing to try to answer your objections anyway if you should like. But I would not be inclined to make any response without further prompting.    

However, if you were speaking to something specific in the three paragraph post which you quoted, I would like to try to make a cogent reply. If this be the case, clarify for me if you will what "This" is, that I should try to address, that according to you, follows as a matter of course, being "the biggest problem with all religion". Forgive me, I feel an obligation when someone quotes me to have the courtesy to reply, but I am also perhaps obtuse in failing to see much connection with what I said and what you said. 

Regards,

3DOP

 

"This" was simply meant to discuss inclusivity vs exclusivity in religion and with that my intent was perhaps to voice some misgivings with religion as it pertains to that idea, or at least the western religion of Christianity and that which falls under its broad wings.  

I found your thoughts intriguing and figured it was an interesting direction from which to voice my concerns.  Feel free to respond or not.  I mean if someone is willing to answer my objections, perhaps I can be set right or we can at least agree there is something worth talking about here.  

Link to post
On 9/22/2020 at 3:59 PM, stemelbow said:

If there be a God who hopes or knows that some will be in hell of whatever sort (like LDS' Terrestrial and Telestial lands), then what is such a god anyway?

I don't think any religion teaches that God "hopes" that some will "be in hell". 

Let me flip the question around on you, what is such a God that doesn't teach about the natural/spiritual consequences of behavior, and who doesn't allow his children to use their own agency?

Are you suggesting that God is no God if he doesn't raise entitled little brats?  Should we all just be entitled children, regardless of how nasty we are?  If that is heaven - a place for entitled children - then that doesn't sound like a place I want to be. 

I like the following quote because it points out a truth about entitlement and joy.  What is heaven without true joy?

Quote

 

It’s so critical we combat entitlement in ourselves and our kids because entitlement kills our ability to experience two critical things in life: gratitude and joy. None of us would sign up our kids to live their lives without gratitude or joy, yet it’s surprising how many adults live without either. Entitlement does that.

First, entitled people are never grateful people. If you believe you have something coming to you, it’s hard to receive it as a gift, a bonus, an unexpected benefit or even a surprise. In your mind, someone owes it to you. It had better be good. In fact, you might believe more should have done for you. How can you ever be grateful as a result?

Second, entitled people experience very little joy. Because gratitude is absent, so is delight. It’s so very hard to find pleasure in what you have because you had it coming to you, it’s yours, and you live in a quiet fear of losing it. Entitled people fight so hard to get what they want that they can’t imagine life without it. That fear alone robs them of any joy.

https://theparentcue.org/entitled-parents/

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't think any religion teaches that God "hopes" that some will "be in hell". 

I said hopes or knows.  I suppose it could be that he knows some will be in hell, even if he doesn't know them personally, but it seems to me if he's behind it all and knows some will be in hell that is pretty much like hoping some will be.  If some are not, then it seems it'll frustrate his plan.  There is no fear of the devil or hell at all.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Let me flip the question around on you, what is such a God that doesn't teach about the natural/spiritual consequences of behavior, and who doesn't allow his children to use their own agency?

Sounds like the Christian God to me.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that God is no God if he doesn't raise entitled little brats?  Should we all just be entitled children, regardless of how nasty we are?  If that is heaven - a place for entitled children - then that doesn't sound like a place I want to be. 

I am suggesting as taught in religion, heaven seems like that which will be filled with entitled little brats.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I like the following quote because it points out a truth about entitlement and joy.  What is heaven without true joy?

 

 

I don't see joy in religion's heaven.  I see pain and suffering.  Who wants to be exalted above another? 

Link to post
44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

but it seems to me if he's behind it all and knows some will be in hell that is pretty much like hoping some will be.  

We do not necessarily believe that God is behind it all in the way that you insinuate.  There is the belief that eternal law is behind it all.  God himself could fall from exaltation for disobedience to eternal law.   

God is not responsible for other peoples actions.  There are eternal laws.  Mercy cannot rob justice.  Exaltation is a natural consequences of obedience to eternal law.  Makes sense to me.   

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like the Christian God to me.  

Are you seriously suggesting that the Christian God doesn't warn of consequences for behavior, nor allow for free-will?

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I am suggesting as taught in religion, heaven seems like that which will be filled with entitled little brats.  

Those who sacrifice their own will in service to God and others out of love are "entitled little brats"?  I think you know better and are intentionally distorting our teachings of heaven.  

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see joy in religion's heaven.  I see pain and suffering.  Who wants to be exalted above another? 

If you are asking, who wants to live in a world where people are held responsible/accountable for their behaviors and actions? - I do.

You don't see the good in that?  I don't like living with entitled people who do whatever they want with disregard for God, others and law, and expect equal reward and consequence.   It is equivalent to abusing and depleting mother earth of her natural resources for personal gain and then expecting her to give of her bounty in perpetuity.   Nonsense.  We reap what we sew.  

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I am suggesting as taught in religion, heaven seems like that which will be filled with entitled little brats.  

I don't see joy in religion's heaven.  I see pain and suffering.  Who wants to be exalted above another? 

Eww, a good old communist. No, I feel bad that because I, out of love, subsume my will for our Father in Heaven's will that he will bless me. I should not get anything more than the selfish, self-centered twit that only lives to feed their own mortal passions. Yeah, I really want to hang out with those folks for eternity!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Eww, a good old communist. No, I feel bad that because I, out of love, subsume my will for our Father in Heaven's will that he will bless me. I should not get anything more than the selfish, self-centered twit that only lives to feed their own mortal passions. Yeah, I really want to hang out with those folks for eternity!

Wow.  Well I guess this explains it for me. 

Link to post
16 hours ago, pogi said:

We do not necessarily believe that God is behind it all in the way that you insinuate.  There is the belief that eternal law is behind it all.  God himself could fall from exaltation for disobedience to eternal law.   

Maybe God resents his position status and play in the game?  

16 hours ago, pogi said:

God is not responsible for other peoples actions.  There are eternal laws.  Mercy cannot rob justice.  Exaltation is a natural consequences of obedience to eternal law.  Makes sense to me.   

Not really to me.  Afterall the difference between say a believer and a non believer in terms of goodness is not even distinguishable as I see it.  It's seems silly to try and relieve God of his burden simply because he must act within eternal laws.  "I never knew you" might suggest God can only, in capacity, get to know so many people.  The rest are destined to a lesser eternal station simply because he lacks the capacity.  Hmmm...can't say Mormonism isn't interesting at least.  

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the Christian God doesn't warn of consequences for behavior, nor allow for free-will?

The CHristian God doesn't teach the natural at all.  He taught some nonsene about creation of Adam the first man and Eve.  As per behavior?  Well he taught things like mass murder and other debaucheries as well.  That seems to really go against the notion of natural consequences of our actions.  He sought to bless them.  In Mormonism he taught things like polygamy and racism, and supposedly blessed people for such debauchery.  That's not teaching a natural consequence of their actions.  

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Those who sacrifice their own will in service to God and others out of love are "entitled little brats"?  I think you know better and are intentionally distorting our teachings of heaven.  

I'm not distorting anything.  I simply am following the logic.  It seems like misery to live amongst those who sought to find ways to be exalted above others.  That seems like promoting entitlement to me.  

16 hours ago, pogi said:

If you are asking, who wants to live in a world where people are held responsible/accountable for their behaviors and actions? - I do.

You don't see the good in that?  I don't like living with entitled people who do whatever they want with disregard for God, others and law, and expect equal reward and consequence.   It is equivalent to abusing and depleting mother earth of her natural resources for personal gain and then expecting her to give of her bounty in perpetuity.   Nonsense.  We reap what we sew.  

 

I see plenty of good in living in a world where people are held responsible for their behaviors.  That's why I oppose dogma, for instance.  It appears I don't hold in high esteem the things you might value, like faith in God or whatever.  I notice good things like love and sacrifice are accomplished with or without faith in God.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Not really to me.  Afterall the difference between say a believer and a non believer in terms of goodness is not even distinguishable as I see it.  It's seems silly to try and relieve God of his burden simply because he must act within eternal laws.  "I never knew you" might suggest God can only, in capacity, get to know so many people. 

I don't know what "burden" you speak of.  

"I never knew you" was a rebuke of those who profess God with their lips but lived in wickedness.  

Quote

The rest are destined to a lesser eternal station simply because he lacks the capacity.  Hmmm...can't say Mormonism isn't interesting at least.  

Is your perception really that distorted?  Should we blame a judge because a murderer is sentenced to prison?  How is it any different?  The only difference is that God is not fallible and can judge the heart of man.  The only perfectly just and merciful judge, and yet you blame Him for the sentence?  I suppose that in a certain sense, God does "lack the capacity" to judge otherwise.  Or else God would cease to be judge/God - in the same way, a mortal judge would cease to be a judge if he exalted the guilty.  They are indeed incapable of doing so without awful consequence. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 Afterall the difference between say a believer and a non believer in terms of goodness is not even distinguishable as I see it. 

Exaltation is not only about being nice to others.  It is also about knowledge and know how.  No one will be hired as an engineer simply because they are really good people.  In the same way, no one will become a God simply because they are nice.  They have to be trained and prepared in every way.  This life is a proving ground.  This life is a means to find those who are trainable in the ways and whisperings of the Spirit, and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to be one with it.  God is finding those who will do what it takes. being a kind person is only one attribute of God.  But those who don't have ears to hear, will never hear the rest. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not distorting anything.  I simply am following the logic.  It seems like misery to live amongst those who sought to find ways to be exalted above others.  That seems like promoting entitlement to me.  

Again, I am flabbergasted at how distorted you perceive our intentions. 

Sacrificing and working our way to personal fulfillment and self-actualization is in no way "promoting entitlement".  It is not about comparing ourselves to others.  Exaltation is not a competition.  It is about becoming our best self, regardless of how others choose to behave/believe. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I see plenty of good in living in a world where people are held responsible for their behaviors.  

Seems ironic considering your belief that no one is truly culpable for their behaviors.

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
On 9/13/2020 at 3:01 PM, 3DOP said:

Is the truth to be determined by its inclusivity? I could argue that the Catholic faith is inclusive. Truly. While there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, we are also instructed with all earnestness that we cannot know that any particular person is in Hell. There are extra-sacramental means for those who are not members of the Church to be saved by the Church. But I don't want to try to prove that we are inclusive. What difference does it make for our truth claims? It is all about perspective anyway. We are exclusive in some respects, and inclusive in others. But I do not see anywhere that anybody should win a prize for being the most inclusive in every respect. I do not see why anybody should be afraid to be understood as exclusive in many respects.

I am wondering where any of us here are told, by authority we accept, that we can identify the true religion by the standard of which religion is most inclusive. At most, we know that the most inclusive religion is the one we hope is true if we are in the wrong religion. Maybe I should talk about wide roads and narrow roads and where they lead. Is "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me," inclusive? Let's quit trying to be the nicest religion. Would any of our founders have been trying to be the nicest? Not even those "churches" that thought to replace Rome were founded by people trying to be inclusive (nice). Being nice does not create the kind of motivational zeal that it takes to try to start a religious organization. The standard of being nice comes slower for some, Catholic and LDS?, faster for others ("churches" that try to replace Rome).  

If I was wrong about the Catholic faith (mind you this is a mere thought experiment), I would hope that the LDS message is true. The only good reason the "churches" that tried to replace Rome could have for making the attempt, is if the belief and practice of the Catholic faith leads to damnation. The only reason these people in those "churches" are supposedly inclusive of Catholic people, is because there might be Catholic people who reject Catholic teaching and practice. If I was wrong, I would not benefit from that kind of defective inclusivity. I believe everything the Catholic Church teaches, including the Gospel that is condemned as false by the "churches" that tried to replace Rome. That means I believe in indulgences, the veneration of the Virgin Mary, the treasury of the Saints, statues, icons, purgatory, faith and works for salvation, and any other doctrine that these "churches" that tried to replace Rome holds to be abominable. Protestant/Mennonite/Anabaptist inclusivity for Catholics must be logically limited to those who are Catholic in name only. If I was wrong in my faith, given the choice, I would opt for LDS inclusivity.     

I don't know, makes more sense to me for all of us to have differing opinions yet some kind of common ground via things like ecumenicalism.  People are people, we'll always find something to disagree about.  Americans were shielded from a lot of the religious wars Europe had, looks like our time with that is about to end.  Consequences of ignoring that (I think) is you end up with people like Martin Luther coming about then powers that be trying to take everything he said out of context.  Really, all he did was want to reform the church and when that didn't work out, well here we are.  Took a huge religious war plus the council of Trent to get things going in the right direction again.  Remains to be seen how people here will solve that, guess we'll see.

Anyway, I'd look at pope Francis, he's done a great job of trying to bring people to the table.  Even here, far as I can tell it's been LDS leadership, even more than a lot of Catholic leadership that's tried to get along.  I say if the Holy Father can be the adult, why can't the rest who profess belief in Christianity do the same? 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-nelson-meets-with-pope-francis-at-the-vatican?lang=eng

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't know what "burden" you speak of.  

"I never knew you" was a rebuke of those who profess God with their lips but lived in wickedness.  

Yes, "many" who believe are those whom God never got to know.  That's why I mentioned capacity.  I wonder if he can only manage to know so many and the rest are cast off?  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Is your perception really that distorted?  Should we blame a judge because a murderer is sentenced to prison?  How is it any different?  The only difference is that God is not fallible and can judge the heart of man.  The only perfectly just and merciful judge, and yet you blame Him for the sentence?  I suppose that in a certain sense, God does "lack the capacity" to judge otherwise.  Or else God would cease to be judge/God - in the same way, a mortal judge would cease to be a judge if he exalted the guilty.  They are indeed incapable of doing so without awful consequence. 

A judge is not God, at least not as people perceive him.  He judges, sure, but his judgement can't possibly err like a human judge, apparently.  I suppose I have too much faith in humankind to think so many are so bad.  God's messages about his judgment are silly.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Exaltation is not only about being nice to others.  It is also about knowledge and know how.  No one will be hired as an engineer simply because they are really good people.  In the same way, no one will become a God simply because they are nice.  They have to be trained and prepared in every way.  This life is a proving ground.  This life is a means to find those who are trainable in the ways and whisperings of the Spirit, and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to be one with it.  God is finding those who will do what it takes. being a kind person is only one attribute of God.  But those who don't have ears to hear, will never hear the rest. 

Ok.  BUt again, it is God who doesn't know many people.  Either he refuses to get to knw them, or he's limited and can only know so many.  I wonder what would be the outlook if he were better at delegating.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Again, I am flabbergasted at how distorted you perceive our intentions. 

Whose intentions?  I don't know, nor have I claimed to know your intentions.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Sacrificing and working our way to personal fulfillment and self-actualization is in no way "promoting entitlement".  It is not about comparing ourselves to others.  Exaltation is not a competition.  It is about becoming our best self, regardless of how others choose to behave/believe. 

Assenting to the right words at the right time might mean something to some, but not me.  I'm curious, are you suggesting if one is LDS and on track to be exalted that means that one is more righteous than others?  This has little to do with intentions.  I simply don't buy that Mormons or Christians are better than others.  One nice person in either camp carry redeeming qualities by virtue of their kindness.  Of course humans are far more complex than a simplistic view of good and evil.  All are a bit good and a bit naughty.  No one seems any better than another due to their religious attachment.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Seems ironic considering your belief that no one is truly culpable for their behaviors.

 

Its the behaviors that need addressing not the people.  Building each other up seems like a far better way forward then getting worked up over slights of whatever sort.  God, as you make him out to be, seems angry, boring, and simplistic..no offense.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, "many" who believe are those whom God never got to know.  That's why I mentioned capacity.  I wonder if he can only manage to know so many and the rest are cast off?  

A judge is not God, at least not as people perceive him.  He judges, sure, but his judgement can't possibly err like a human judge, apparently.  I suppose I have too much faith in humankind to think so many are so bad.  God's messages about his judgment are silly.  

Ok.  BUt again, it is God who doesn't know many people.  Either he refuses to get to knw them, or he's limited and can only know so many.  I wonder what would be the outlook if he were better at delegating.  

Whose intentions?  I don't know, nor have I claimed to know your intentions.  

Assenting to the right words at the right time might mean something to some, but not me.  I'm curious, are you suggesting if one is LDS and on track to be exalted that means that one is more righteous than others?  This has little to do with intentions.  I simply don't buy that Mormons or Christians are better than others.  One nice person in either camp carry redeeming qualities by virtue of their kindness.  Of course humans are far more complex than a simplistic view of good and evil.  All are a bit good and a bit naughty.  No one seems any better than another due to their religious attachment.  

Its the behaviors that need addressing not the people.  Building each other up seems like a far better way forward then getting worked up over slights of whatever sort.  God, as you make him out to be, seems angry, boring, and simplistic..no offense.  

You don't seem to understand what exaltation is.  It is not a reward for being a nice person, or even for believing (as most Christians believe) as much as it is something that is learned by following eternal principles.  Those who are not exalted are not necessarily "bad" people per se.  They simply have not committed or exerted themselves to ALL the principles of Godhood and perfection. One can't be a doctor without committing and exerting oneself to that end.  It is the same principle.  There is a difference between what you might consider "good" and what is considered "perfect".   Being "good" is not enough.  One must be perfect to be exalted.  

If you think exaltation is achieved simply by saying the right words at the right time, then you didn't learn a thing from your temple experience - or you have forgotten. 

Quote

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel —you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.”

Joseph Smith

You are misconstruing the passage about God not knowing the wicked.  It is not to be taken literally.  It is in reference to knowing, or being one with God in intimacy of Spirit.  It is a bout "knowing" in the spiritual sense. Gnosis.  It is about oneness.  "If you are not one, you are not mine."  It is less about God's "capacity" and more about the individuals intimacy with the Spirit that emanates from God and fills all space and knows/sees all things.  That is how we learn to become God, by becoming one with that all seeing eye of the omnipresent Spirit.  We are taught principles that when obeyed, help us to tap into that great illuminating Spirit.  Exaltation is a process of illumination.  It is more than being a nice/decent human being.  It will require thousands of years, or more of learning and application.    It is no a place for entitled brats.  On the extreme contrary, it is only for those who FULLY apply themselves to the principles.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

You don't seem to understand what exaltation is.  It is not a reward for being a nice person, or even for believing (as most Christians believe) as much as it is something that is learned by following eternal principles.  Those who are not exalted are not necessarily "bad" people per se.  They simply have not committed or exerted themselves to ALL the principles of Godhood and perfection. One can't be a doctor without committing and exerting oneself to that end.  It is the same principle.  There is a difference between what you might consider "good" and what is considered "perfect".   Being "good" is not enough.  One must be perfect to be exalted.  

If you think exaltation is achieved simply by saying the right words at the right time, then you didn't learn a thing from your temple experience - or you have forgotten. 

I see, so to you it's like picking a career.  "hmmm...I think I'll pick something easy like Telestial.  THat's like not going to college, huh?"  I guess it's worse than I thought.

Is it we work towards perfection and must achieve it?  Or is it God perfects us if we do good enough?  Saying its not about being a nice person seems silly.  "You were a real jerk..  But you did all the right things so, please, enter into my glory, ye perfected one"  

Next one up:

"Oh...so you think you were a "nice person", huh?  Well that's not what this is about.  I never knew ya, even if you tried to pray to me and stuff.  See ya...Imma bout to spew you out of my mouth for such an approach.  And ok, fine, I know I said I never knew you, but what I really mean is you aren't one with me because, well, you needed to say a few arbitrary phrases and do a few arbitrary things that you didn't really see as interesting or useful.  I don't care about being nice, or your efforts to do good.  It just doesn't matter. What matters is if you "lived by eternal principles", and if "you know in a spiritual sense"...Also, it really takes you "being intimate with the spirit".  None of that really worked out for you...so in essence I never knew ya.  To my left.  I'll spew you out of my mouth in a sec.  I like to spit 'em out in bunches."

2 hours ago, pogi said:

You are misconstruing the passage about God not knowing the wicked.  It is not to be taken literally.  It is in reference to knowing, or being one with God in intimacy of Spirit.  It is a bout "knowing" in the spiritual sense. Gnosis.  It is about oneness.  "If you are not one, you are not mine."  It is less about God's "capacity" and more about the individuals intimacy with the Spirit that emanates from God and fills all space and knows/sees all things.  That is how we learn to become God, by becoming one with that all seeing eye of the omnipresent Spirit.  We are taught principles that when obeyed, help us to tap into that great illuminating Spirit.  Exaltation is a process of illumination.  It is more than being a nice/decent human being.  It will require thousands of years, or more of learning and application.    It is no a place for entitled brats.  On the extreme contrary, it is only for those who FULLY apply themselves to the principles.  

Thousands of years?  YOu mean thousands of years God's time or ours?  Maybe it'll be billions of years while the rest of us losers melt away in hell, or idly play bingo in Telestial, or cards in Terrestrial.  

Have fun.  I'm sure you'll be happy and God'll condemn me for my disagreement with this stuff.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I see, so to you it's like picking a career.  "hmmm...I think I'll pick something easy like Telestial.  THat's like not going to college, huh?"  I guess it's worse than I thought.

Is it we work towards perfection and must achieve it?  Or is it God perfects us if we do good enough?  Saying its not about being a nice person seems silly.  "You were a real jerk..  But you did all the right things so, please, enter into my glory, ye perfected one"  

Next one up:

"Oh...so you think you were a "nice person", huh?  Well that's not what this is about.  I never knew ya, even if you tried to pray to me and stuff.  See ya...Imma bout to spew you out of my mouth for such an approach.  And ok, fine, I know I said I never knew you, but what I really mean is you aren't one with me because, well, you needed to say a few arbitrary phrases and do a few arbitrary things that you didn't really see as interesting or useful.  I don't care about being nice, or your efforts to do good.  It just doesn't matter. What matters is if you "lived by eternal principles", and if "you know in a spiritual sense"...Also, it really takes you "being intimate with the spirit".  None of that really worked out for you...so in essence I never knew ya.  To my left.  I'll spew you out of my mouth in a sec.  I like to spit 'em out in bunches."

Thousands of years?  YOu mean thousands of years God's time or ours?  Maybe it'll be billions of years while the rest of us losers melt away in hell, or idly play bingo in Telestial, or cards in Terrestrial.  

Have fun.  I'm sure you'll be happy and God'll condemn me for my disagreement with this stuff.  

I disagree with your characterization of God and your mock scenarios.  I never said being nice wasn't important.  It is necessary.  I said it isn't ALL that is required. Perfection (in all things) young grasshopper. That is what is required.  

It is more like working towards self actualization.  It is only like picking a career in the sense that commitment, application, effort, and learned skills are required to achieve it.  It is not a freebie for idle, entitled children.  Perfection is only achieved through Christ, but it is still something that has to be learned and achieved through application. 

Quote

Thousands of years?  YOu mean thousands of years God's time or ours?  Maybe it'll be billions of years while the rest of us losers melt away in hell, or idly play bingo in Telestial, or cards in Terrestrial.  

You could also be in the Celestial kingdom and not be exalted.  Exaltation is only for those in the highest degree of the highest kingdom of progression.

I think you downplay the glory of the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
Link to post
56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I see, so to you it's like picking a career.  "hmmm...I think I'll pick something easy like Telestial.  THat's like not going to college, huh?"  I guess it's worse than I thought.

Is it we work towards perfection and must achieve it?  Or is it God perfects us if we do good enough?  Saying its not about being a nice person seems silly.  "You were a real jerk..  But you did all the right things so, please, enter into my glory, ye perfected one"  

Next one up:

"Oh...so you think you were a "nice person", huh?  Well that's not what this is about.  I never knew ya, even if you tried to pray to me and stuff.  See ya...Imma bout to spew you out of my mouth for such an approach.  And ok, fine, I know I said I never knew you, but what I really mean is you aren't one with me because, well, you needed to say a few arbitrary phrases and do a few arbitrary things that you didn't really see as interesting or useful.  I don't care about being nice, or your efforts to do good.  It just doesn't matter. What matters is if you "lived by eternal principles", and if "you know in a spiritual sense"...Also, it really takes you "being intimate with the spirit".  None of that really worked out for you...so in essence I never knew ya.  To my left.  I'll spew you out of my mouth in a sec.  I like to spit 'em out in bunches."

Thousands of years?  YOu mean thousands of years God's time or ours?  Maybe it'll be billions of years while the rest of us losers melt away in hell, or idly play bingo in Telestial, or cards in Terrestrial.  

Have fun.  I'm sure you'll be happy and God'll condemn me for my disagreement with this stuff.  

Oooooohhhh you are in soooooo much trouble!!!

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when you finally realize how much you messed up!

And our Father isn't even going to need to say anything to you for you to get your reality check. He's just going to unblock all of your memories, including what you knew about him in your premortal life.

You are going to feel sooooooooooooo embarrassed!

And don't say I never tried to warn you because you will remember that I did, when you do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I disagree with your characterization of God and your mock scenarios.  I never said being nice wasn't important.  It is necessary.  I said it isn't ALL that is required. Perfection (in all things) young grasshopper. That is what is required.  

It is more like working towards self actualization.  It is only like picking a career in the sense that commitment, application, effort, and learned skills are required to achieve it.  It is not a freebie for idle, entitled children.  Perfection is only achieved through Christ, but it is still something that has to be learned and achieved through application. 

You could also be in the Celestial kingdom and not be exalted.  Exaltation is only for those in the highest degree of the highest kingdom of progression.

I think you downplay the glory of the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms.

Thanks pogi.    I disagree with you on this too.  I also find your career analogy pretty sad.  I admit the ideas of telestial and terrestrial aren't very intriguing.  I thought they were supposed to be avoided.  That's what I was taught.  

I'm also sad to think of the way believers have to view others.  The way you described believers who thought they tried and prayed to god as wicked is just too pessimistic for me.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Oooooohhhh you are in soooooo much trouble!!!

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when you finally realize how much you messed up!

And our Father isn't even going to need to say anything to you for you to get your reality check. He's just going to unblock all of your memories, including what you knew about him in your premortal life.

You are going to feel sooooooooooooo embarrassed!

And don't say I never tried to warn you because you will remember that I did, when you do.

That's not very convincing, it seems to support my impression, believers think god is out to condemn people.  They seem to feel joy or satisfaction at the idea.    

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...