Why would God create humans to be natural men and women that are His enemies?

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

We are speaking of a passage that says the natural man...all humans....are an enemy to God.  We are God's enemy.  God made us, or created a situation, where we all would end up His enemy unless we put off the natural man.  What is so hard about this?

So was Christ an enemy of God?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

We are speaking of a passage that says the natural man...all humans....are an enemy to God.  We are God's enemy.  God made us, or created a situation, where we all would end up His enemy unless we put off the natural man.  What is so hard about this?

@teddyaware has already taught us well on this point, quoting Moses 5, teaching taught in the temple, at every endowment session, it says

Quote

9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.
10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the eternal life which giveth unto all the obedient. (Moses 5)

God created a situation not, as you say "where we all would end up His enemy unless we put off the natural man" BUT, as Eve said, He set up a situation so that "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the eternal life which giveth unto all the obedient. "

What God was doing made it possible for us to become LIKE HIM!!

You have to be a caterpillar before you can become a butterfly- we could not fulfil our destininies without starting out in a lower state and growing by fulfilling our potential.

[Olmec Donald]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Its all about the problem of evil and suffering and reconciling it with a loving God. 

Being neither a philosopher nor adherent to a well-structured religious thought system, I don't have a clear-cut answer.  But imo there are other relevant sources beside religion and philosophy.

Joseph Smith once said, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."   At the time he spoke those words there were extremely few people walking around who had "gazed into heaven five minutes", but thanks to modern medical technology it happens a lot more often today.

Here are a few video interviews with people who died and came back.  I'm not going to attempt to codify the main points; imo there are some close parallels to Mormonism but also some differences in emphasis.  The videos should be cued up to skip the backstories, in the interest of saving you guys time.  I suggest watching maybe two or three minutes of each just to get a general idea:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are of course more where these came from (i.e., YouTube).

Edited October 23, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Being neither a philosopher nor adherent to a well-structured religious thought system, I don't have a clear-cut answer.  But imo there are other relevant sources beside religion and philosophy.

Joseph Smith once said, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."   At the time he spoke those words there were extremely few people walking around who had "gazed into heaven five minutes", but thanks to modern medical technology it happens a lot more often today.

Here are a few video interviews with people who died and came back.  I'm not going to attempt to codify the main points; imo there are some close parallels to Mormonism but also some differences in emphasis.  The videos should be cued up to skip the backstories, in the interest of saving you guys time.  I suggest watching maybe two or three minutes of each just to get a general idea:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are of course more where these came from (i.e., YouTube).

Why these are so important is to understand that these are empirical evidence reports that are valid as scientific evidence. And of course there are thousands more.

A scientist goes into her lab, and finds that her gizmo reads 107.5.

Others over the world have the same experience with their personal gizmos

This data is interpreted as evidence that under the same conditions, experimentally, a reading of 107.5 indicates the presence of substance Xyz. 

The presence of Xyz WITH ABC kills cancer cells, let us imagine, so the experience of reading the gizmo as 107.5 scientifically indicates a possible cure for cancer.

The scientist has her experience, it is replicated, and those near death have their experiences replicated as well.

And yet NDE'S are not counted as "science"

Go figure

 

 

 

 

[Olmec Donald]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why these are so important is to understand that these are empirical evidence reports that are valid as scientific evidence. And of course there are thousands more.

In general the scientific world doesn't consider the plural of anecdote to be evidence, but that helps keep the game interesting in this case.  This way, either side can find sufficient evidence to support what they want to believe. 

It seems to me that the human mind is very good at finding - even "manufacturing" - arguments and evidence to support its biases.  We hear something which we disagree with and our mind has come up with a counter-measure before we even realize it.  This makes it hard to change people's minds through argument alone.  Therefore imo our core beliefs matter a great deal because the mind defaults to serving our core beliefs.  Or to put it another way, we see what we want to see. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[teddyaware]

27 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

In general the scientific world doesn't consider the plural of anecdote to be evidence, but that helps keep the game interesting in this case.  This way, either side can find sufficient evidence to support what they want to believe. 

It seems to me that the human mind is very good at finding - even "manufacturing" - arguments and evidence to support its biases.  We hear something which we disagree with and our mind has come up with a counter-measure before we even realize it.  This makes it hard to change people's minds through argument alone.  Therefore imo our core beliefs matter a great deal because the mind defaults to serving our core beliefs.  Or to put it another way, we see what we want to see. 

You’ve got me wondering why many former believers want to believe there is no God, no day of redemption and no ultimate victory of good over evil? I’m wondering what the allure of nihilism might be?

Edited October 23, 2021 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why these are so important is to understand that these are empirical evidence reports that are valid as scientific evidence. And of course there are thousands more.

A scientist goes into her lab, and finds that her gizmo reads 107.5.

Others over the world have the same experience with their personal gizmos

This data is interpreted as evidence that under the same conditions, experimentally, a reading of 107.5 indicates the presence of substance Xyz. 

The presence of Xyz WITH ABC kills cancer cells, let us imagine, so the experience of reading the gizmo as 107.5 scientifically indicates a possible cure for cancer.

The scientist has her experience, it is replicated, and those near death have their experiences replicated as well.

And yet NDE'S are not counted as "science"

Go figure

It is hard to define a control group for one.

Edited October 23, 2021 by The Nehor

[Olmec Donald]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

You’ve got me wondering why many former believers want to believe there is no God, no day of redemption and no ultimate victory of good over evil? I’m wondering what the allure of nihilism might be?

I think the universal mistake comes in myriad forms, and can be described as “being mistaken about what would make us happy.”

We think that treasuring our grievances will justify us and make us happy, and if our litany of grievances logically traces back to God, then we may embrace nihilism or something similar.  After this has failed to make us happy we may realize that negativity is not our friend no matter how powerful the arguments in its favor seem to be. 

Once we are tired enough of the bitterness and darkness and anger and misery, there really is no subsequent even darker and angrier path (that I can think of anyway).  So from there, the person's next step is very likely to be towards the light.

Nihilism can look really scary when you see it in someone, but on the other hand it is likely to be the darkness before the dawn. 

In my opinion.

[CV75]

I nearly died laughing -- yes it was a NDE -- because I busted a gut and my head came off.

[Olmec Donald]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I nearly died laughing -- yes it was a NDE -- because I busted a gut and my head came off.

Could you elaborate?  I don't want to jump to conclusions. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

You’ve got me wondering why many former believers want to believe there is no God, no day of redemption and no ultimate victory of good over evil? I’m wondering what the allure of nihilism might be?

There is a famous philosopher named Thomas Nagel who I quote often because he understands how rational it is to believe in God.

Yet he is an atheist who knows that God's existence cannot be proved or disproved, yet he "hopes" ( faith = hope for things unseen) there is no God.

He just doesn't want to live in a world where God exists

Essentially his religion is no religion.  And a very SIGNIFICANT philosopher

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/325845-in-speaking-of-the-fear-of-religion-i-don-t-mean

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Could you elaborate?  I don't want to jump to conclusions. 

Just a joke, one of several that have been failing lately... A play on the clichés, "I died laughing" and "I busted a gut laughing" / "I laughed my head off"  -- both causes of death but In this case, just "nearly"...

At any rate, I do not know what to think of NDE. I take those who report them at face value, and allow them their conclusions. If it is a gift of the Spirit, I have others I already need to develop better. If it is not, I have chosen other temporal/material things I need to do before I die.

[Olmec Donald]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Just a joke, one of several that have been failing lately... A play on the clichés, "I died laughing" and "I busted a gut laughing" / "I laughed my head off"  -- both causes of death but In this case, just "nearly"...

Okay, got it!  Sorry I'm so dense, sometimes it's almost like I have a head made of stone...

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

At any rate, I do not know what to think of NDE. I take those who report them at face value, and allow them their conclusions. If it is a gift of the Spirit, I have others I already need to develop better. If it is not, I have chosen other temporal/material things I need to do before I die.

I totally understand, and genuinely appreciate your live-and-let-live approach to the subject. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

You’ve got me wondering why many former believers want to believe there is no God, no day of redemption and no ultimate victory of good over evil? I’m wondering what the allure of nihilism might be?

It is odd that you impute a desire to believe in nihilism to them. They would probably impute a desire to believe in God, redemption, and ultimate victory to you.

The question would be what does belief have to do with it? I would like to wake up tomorrow and find that all my dreams have come true and that all my troubles are behind me but I don’t believe it is going to happen because I want it to. Why assume that others choose their beliefs solely by what they want.

5 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I think the universal mistake comes in myriad forms, and can be described as “being mistaken about what would make us happy.”

We think that treasuring our grievances will justify us and make us happy, and if our litany of grievances logically traces back to God, then we may embrace nihilism or something similar.  After this has failed to make us happy we may realize that negativity is not our friend no matter how powerful the arguments in its favor seem to be. 

Once we are tired enough of the bitterness and darkness and anger and misery, there really is no subsequent even darker and angrier path (that I can think of anyway).  So from there, the person's next step is very likely to be towards the light.

Nihilism can look really scary when you see it in someone, but on the other hand it is likely to be the darkness before the dawn. 

In my opinion.

Edited October 24, 2021 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I think the universal mistake comes in myriad forms, and can be described as “being mistaken about what would make us happy.”

We think that treasuring our grievances will justify us and make us happy, and if our litany of grievances logically traces back to God, then we may embrace nihilism or something similar.  After this has failed to make us happy we may realize that negativity is not our friend no matter how powerful the arguments in its favor seem to be. 

Once we are tired enough of the bitterness and darkness and anger and misery, there really is no subsequent even darker and angrier path (that I can think of anyway).  So from there, the person's next step is very likely to be towards the light.

Nihilism can look really scary when you see it in someone, but on the other hand it is likely to be the darkness before the dawn. 

In my opinion.

It was for me.

And with my understanding of truth as, essentially a justified paradigm that accomplishes its purpose, I decided to find a paradigm to give mankind a purpose and also be justified BY a pragmatic view of what works experientially to give people purpose and joy.  

And science was clearly not the path because it automatically rejected the idea that anyone or anything has any purpose above reproducing.

Clearly an untenable position. People DIE for abstractions like "Freedom".  So what is the highest purpose?

The notion that we can, as humans, become like Our Father who art in heaven, because we are his children, fit the bill perfectly, and then the idea that the results of that will create a perfect society?

Done!

And then getting zapped by an Intelligence outside myself confirming the notion was as true according to that Intelligence, was the clincher.

Then Moroni 10:4-5 and James 1?

Clear as a bell!

And here I am 42 years later.

Edited October 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 

If there is indeed absurdity in what we think matters - and there probably is - I doubt that it's held against us.

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And with my understanding of truth as, essentially a justified paradigm that accomplishes its purpose, I decided to find a paradigm to give mankind a purpose and also be justified BY a pragmatic view of what works experientially to give people purpose and joy.  [emphasis Donald's]

Interesting definition of "truth"! 

So if I understand correctly, you were deliberately seeking the most justifiable, effective, and elevating paradigm you could find (or something like that)? 

I dug up this quote by your buddy Thomas Nagel:  "To look for a single general theory of how to decide the right thing to do is like looking for a single theory of how to decide what to believe."

Presumably his point was that both are equally unattainable, but I think your approach is both more practical and more beneficial, whether or not everything about your new paradigm is perfect.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

Interesting definition of "truth"! 

So if I understand correctly, you were deliberately seeking the most justifiable, effective, and elevating paradigm you could find (or something like that)? 

I dug up this quote by your buddy Thomas Nagel:  "To look for a single general theory of how to decide the right thing to do is like looking for a single theory of how to decide what to believe."

Presumably his point was that both are equally unattainable, but I think your approach is both more practical and more beneficial, whether or not everything about your new paradigm is perfect.

Where was that quote? More tomorrow.

My view actually includes multiple interlocking independent paradigms. But the golden rule come pretty close for morals

That is essentially what Kant's Categorical Imperative is allegedly derived by reason alone, but it is only for morals, not for example the nature of God.

That is also how my view works, it is a bundle of independent paradigms and is scripture based.

[Teancum]

On 10/22/2021 at 4:34 PM, let’s roll said:

I guess we could spend time speculating about King Benjamin’s choice of words.  Or we could work on becoming more meek, patient, humble and full of love.

I’m opting for the latter.

Or we can use critical thinking and rational thought.

[Teancum]

On 10/21/2021 at 5:21 PM, MiserereNobis said:

 

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening). I say this as someone who has spent some time academically studying this (I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

The free-will theodicy that you also espouse (evil in the hands of each individual) also doesn't address natural evil. It also has it's major problems, too. It is a fairly common theodicy, so it has been deeply analyzed and criticized.

You also claimed that there must be a balance, that we must know wickedness to know righteousness. But do we really need to have so much wickedness? Couldn't there be one less instance of wickedness? I mean, imagine if Mao had only murdered 44 million people instead of 45 million. Did we really need that extra million killed to have balance between good and evil? If so, then I point you again to Voltaire and that this theodicy is simply saying there really isn't evil.

I am a faithful believer in God. I do not have an answer to the problem of evil. I am wary of those who do, because every theodicy I have studied has obvious flaws. I understand people losing faith over it. I thank God that it has not hurt my faith.

 

Well said and better than I could say it.

 

[Teancum]

On 10/21/2021 at 6:11 PM, ksfisher said:

While I believe I can learn from suffering and misfortune in the lives of others, I don't believe God creates that suffering and misfortune in order to teach me.  And I don't believe that anyone believe that a situation like the one you've described above would be viewed as a good thing by anyone.

We live in a world where random things, bad things, evil things, happen all the time. 

The Book of Mormon calls on us to "mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort" (Mosiah 18:9).  As we do that we grow and come closer to Christ. 

Yet God places us in this world.  We give God credit for the good things.  Why not the bad?

[Teancum]

On 10/21/2021 at 6:48 PM, pogi said:

I am not claiming that I have the answer to evil in general, but in this specific scenario while tragic, can such an event be called "evil"?  I think evil is characterized by immoral or unrighteous behavior.  

Some may judge God's behavior to be evil/immoral for not intervening when he could, but I think that judgment is not attainable or defensible from our limited mortal perspective. 

It is evil and suffering.  Not just evil.

[Teancum]

On 10/21/2021 at 11:58 PM, mfbukowski said:

So tsunamis are "evil"?

Simple. This is the random suffering part.

[Teancum]

On 10/22/2021 at 3:47 AM, mfbukowski said:

Accidents can happen in a world which is undetermined and God Himself has chosen immanence voluntarily in order to tutor us, his children. Trials are opportunities for growth, certainly not "evil".

Death is a mere assignment to the other side, her progression continues. I will see her in a few years, and we are sealed, we will continue our relationship and progession through eternity, and I will, through trials, grow in understanding better the pain of others while I am here alone. I will know loneliness as I have never known it before 

I can become more like the savior by learning more about mental trials and pain who took upon himself ALL TRIALS of humanity, meaning I am NEVER alone in trials, the savior has been there before. And now, this could be an opportunity to grow by emulating Him. 

How does one rank trials that are an opportunity for growth?  Is is growth for so many children to die of starvation and the parents simply have to watch?  Is a child that is afflicted with painful cancer an opportunity for that child to grow?  Or for their parents to grow as they watch their child due?  How about a viscous random shooting?  Who grows from that?  And again why are some born into the lap of luxury and ease while other are born into abject misery. I can thank God for my abundant blessing yet at the same time know other lack so very much. How did I gain so much favor?

[Teancum]

On 10/22/2021 at 7:43 AM, CV75 said:

 

Oddly perhaps, the answer to the problem of evil is faith. Perhaps the problem is with theodicy itself, the incorrect assumption God must be vindicated.

Your last comment sounds a lot like Calvinism to me.  It is not so much that God needs to be vindicated. It is whether the problem of evil and suffering speaks loudly that the personal God of Judeo Christian thought may not exist.