Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Surgenator]

Many scholars exist, who are not part of your faith, would disagree with you. How do you know who's right?

This is a determination each individual has to make for themselves. If you are indeed searching, may I suggest you look for one that has an eternal perspective.

And how am I suppose to know who has an eternal perspective? More importantly, how do I know the eternal perspective is the correct perspective?

If objective morals exist independent of God, we do not have to appeal to God to be moral. It also means that God has the capacity of being amoral, and God has/is doing some very immoral actions. For example: vicarious redemption, infinite punishment for finite crime, punishment for not believing, etc...

I think on the contrary, we do have to depend on God since He is our Heavenly Father as well as the administrator of the law. What you have said is akin to saying that you do not have to answer to a judge if you broke the law. God because of His nature, does not have the capacity to be immoral.... it is just not in His nature. If He were to do something immoral, He would cease to be God and all of His creations would collapse into chaos.

I really despise the "not in his nature" defense. It at no point addresses how one objectively determines god's nature. Quoting a book he supposedly authored is not objective. Asking him directly is also not objective. Also, the defense does not prevent god from being out of his nature for a brief moment.

Since I don't believe God exist, the whole "administrator of the law" and "answer to a judge" are meaningless statements. They are more of a distraction from the primary discussion.

By what standard are you saying vicarious redemption is immoral? I hope you will not claim that such a standard is objective and universal, because I suggest to you that it is not. I am suggesting that according to God's law it is not immoral. Christ did indeed voluntarily suffer and give His life for us, but He is resurrected, and He lives.

The standard is very simple and originates as the consequence of our freewill. The standard: a person must bear the responsibility of their actions. The only valid excuse is if the person in question cannot reasonably comprehend the consequences of their actions e.g. child or mentally ill. Vicarious redemption states that someone else can take the responsibility without justification. It would encourage immoral actions since the consequences could be given to someone else.

Just imagine a parent gets a spurt of road rage because someone cut him off. The parent punches his child. Vicarious redemption states that is perfectly fine especially if the child gave permission to his parent to hurt him instead of the driver that cut him off. And it wouldn't make it any less immoral if the driver who cut them off asked the child to take the punch for him.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime is not something LDS believe in. As I said in another post elsewhere, Christ said that those who do not repent must suffer even as He has suffered. This, I don't believe has reference to the cross. Rather, it has reference to what took place in the Garden of Gethsemane. What I believe took place there was Christ making the transition from being mortal to being immortal. He bled from every pore. He was shedding His blood in an extremely painful process.

I'm not too familiar with all the stuff Mormons believe. Does mormonism have an eternal hell where sinners will burn forever and ever?

Immortal beings do not have blood in their veins. What is there, I do not know, but when the Roman soldier pierced Christ's side with a spear, a clear fluid is reported as having come out.

There is oxymoron. Immortal being that dies. Plus, this is unfounded claim.

The point being that unless we repent, we will have to endure that painful transition from mortality to immortality without the help of God. If we had repented, then Christ's sacrifice will have changed us "in the twinkling of an eye", and we will not have to endure that. However, after that penalty has been paid, we go on to a reward commensurate to our behaviors during mortality where we will find such peace and happiness as our actions suggested we desired.

Here is another annoying thing. Why would you repent to the judge? You repent to the person you wronged not some third party. That would be the moral thing to do.

How would you know if God administered the moral law correctly? Faith isn't enough.

God does not render judgment until after our mortal test is complete. "Judgment Day" is yet future and then God will render His verdicts according to the eternal moral law as it applies to each individual according as their works have been.

That doesn't answer the question. How would you know if God administered the moral law correctly?