Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Surgenator]

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?

My understanding is that there are only two perspectives: temporal and eternal. Temporal connotes this life is all there is; nothing before and nothing after. You may disagree, but this makes no sense to me. An eternal perspective connotes an eternity of progress in learning and ability.

Why can't there by cyclical or evolving perspective? So do you believe you existed before you were born? If not, why would ceasing to exist after you die be so senseless?

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.

I guess we have a different understanding of the word "nature". For me, it is kind of like the "leopard cannot change his spots" thing. A natural condition is something that just is. also we have a disagreement about the word "objective". For me, truth and reality are objective. Since I believe the evidence of the eye witness accounts of prophets as recorded in scripture; those things represent truth to me and indicate the reality of God.

Sure, there is an objective truth and reality. However, this doesn't address how you know god's nature objectively. For the sake of the argument, lets say God is really the trickster god Loki. You cannot trust Loki to tell the prophets the truth. No matter how sincere and honest the prophets might be, they cannot be trusted to state the objective truth when their source told them a lie. So how would you know if the god you're worshiping is NOT a trickster god?

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.

I have no doubt but that what you say is more than reasonable, but it is still subjective. There is no objectively identifiable basis for that. Only you and or your group would adhere to it which makes it either subjective or relative and in no way objective. It certainly is not applied universally. I do admit that the Atonement (vicarious redemption) is difficult to comprehend, but on accepting the reality of God and His law (because for me they make sense), then I must accept the Atonement on faith. By the way, I do not believe faith is without reason. I believe it requires it.

There is an objective identifiable basis for this rule: cause and effect. Are you going to argue that a cause leads to a subjective effect? Which frankly would sound ridiculous.

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.

The following explanation will not satisfy, I'm sure, because it requires faith, but here goes: The things that qualify Jesus Christ to Atone for our sins are characteristics the individual(s) in your example(s) do not have. Jesus Christ is God and he is sinless.

So instead of the parent punching the child, he should of punched a baby? The requirement that a purely innocent being take someone else's punishment makes it worse not better. If the person taking the someone else's punishment wasn't innocent, then at least you would be able to make a case that the punishment he's receiving now is what he deserved for his earlier crimes.

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

LDS doctrine holds that there are two other places one can go , depending on the severity of their crimes, but both taken together can be consider a hell because for LDS, hell is defined as eternal separation from God. However prior to going to one of these two places, a penalty must be paid for the sins committed in order to satisfy justice since these individuals chose not to repent. This punishment is not of endless duration and once the penalty is paid, the individual goes to where he will have as much peace and happiness as he was willing to receive as indicated by his action on earth. However, for these souls, there will be no further progression.

So I can go to a place of peace and happiness and be away from god. And in this peace and happiness place, I can commit all kinds of atrocities without being punished because I'm away from God. God can't judge what he doesn't know. If he does know what I'm doing, then I'm not away from him. I found flaw in your worldview.

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

It is within the power of Christ to cause that His spirit could leave His physical body. This is what death is; the separation of the spirit from the body. Christ's spirit also had the power to take up the body again upon His resurrection.

Good job on cheapening the punishment known as death. I only need to separate my spirit from my body and all kinds of immoral acts are paid for. Let me go and kill my neighbor for making some noise but don't worry. I'm only separating his spirit from his body, his essence is fine.

Another thing that needs to be understood ti that LDS believe that Jesus Christ and Jehovah (the God of the Old Testament) are one and the same. Jehovah while in spirit form (because He had not yet been born of Mary) created this finite heaven and this earth; this state of existence where entropy exists, within the infinite universe where entropy does not exist. Consider it like a bubble within an ocean. The point being, Christ, being God has power in His spirit that we do not have.

Your not doing yourself any favors by including the old testament god. I wouldn't worship such a despicable being no matter the punishment.

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.

You have to do both. Repentance is a process with several steps and lasts until the day of one's death. True repentance requires remorse for the sin, the making of reparations to the those injured and a determination not to repeat the sin. Since we are prone to make more mistakes, we have to continue to repent. As far as Christ is concerned it is the effort; the direction we are going; are we making progress in the right direction as opposed to attaining perfection in this life. By becoming one with Christ, we are perfected in Him. His grace is sufficient for us as long as we are making an effort to keep His commandments. But another person; the one offended is not the only consideration. The law was offended as well. This concept is true with our earthly laws. A person who breaks the law has to make reparations to the person offended as well as answer to the law.

LOL. The law is offended!? Does the law have feelings? Is it alive? Thats just absurd.

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

How would you know if any judge administered the law correctly. As far as I know, that cannot be answered until judgment is handed down. But if God is a perfectly just God, then I have faith that He will indeed be just. I'm not sure I understand your concern. Would you have the same misgivings when going before an earthly tribunal? Why would you have such misgivings? If one is not guilty, it would seem to me they need not fear.

The human laws are written down and accessible to anyone who wishes to read them. The Judge has to rule by what the written law states. Where is the objective moral law written down? Before you give the "in your heart" or "in his word" answer, ask yourself who wrote the "law" there. For the law to be truly objective, the judge can show you what the law states but not tell you.