Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[ether-ore]

[quote='ether-ore' pid='878860' dateline='1424323860']

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

That you do not believe in God is the key. For me, within the reality of God is His administrative capacity as a judge. An eternal law exists, and God will render judgment according to law. I believe that the analogy of a mortal judge fits.

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.

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.

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.

The eternal law that I mentioned absolutely requires a penalty be paid for a breach of that law. That penalty will be paid either by us or by God on our behalf. Because Jesus Christ is God (the administrator of the law; the judge) and because He is sinless, this qualifies Him to pay the penalty for us on condition of our repentance. It is through repentance that we align our will with God's, thus becoming "one" with Him.

This point is crucial. It is the unity of will and purpose with an infinite eternal and sinless God and the finite sins of the sinner as presented before justice that makes the combination appear as sinless before justice (Infinity plus anything is infinity). If we are one with Jesus Christ, His infinite sinless goodness completely obscures our finite sins and we appear to justice as sinless with Christ. The critical thing that makes us one with Christ is our exercise of charity. Yes, it is a hard concept, and it requires faith to believe it, and I'm sure you will not believe it, but there it is.

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?

Not in the sense of most of Christianity. Here is an overview of what LDS believe happens when we die: Upon death we go to one of two places; either paradise or spirit prison. You could look upon this as a kind of arraignment. In paradise, one is free to go on their own recognizance, while in spirit prison, one is bound over for trial. (Trial happens on Judgment Day after this world has completed the purpose of the mortal test for all of us). I can imagine that those in spirit prison will be suffering a bit as a consequence of the anticipation of the judgments that will befall them.

On Judgment Day we will be judged according to what we did and how we behaved according to God's law as presented by His prophets. Those who have repented, had charity and have become one with Christ will be able to return home to their Heavenly Father and continue to progress.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Lek]

How can you say it's superior if you can't specifically define it?

What do you mean? I just defined it, it seems what you are looking for is some sort of list of right and wrong to live by?

So secular morality can come from any secular source, such as in China where parents kill their newborn daughters because society deems the boys to be the family heirs. And also because the secular government decides it's a good to only allow its citizens to have one child.

[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.

[wiploc]

What do you mean? I just defined it, it seems what you are looking for is some sort of list of right and wrong to live by?

So secular morality can come from any secular source, such as in China where parents kill their newborn daughters because society deems the boys to be the family heirs. And also because the secular government decides it's a good to only allow its citizens to have one child.

On the one hand, yes, if those aren't god-based, then they're secular.

But you've picked deliberately off-putting examples, so I feel compelled to counter with off-putting counter-examples, non-secular atrocities like the Crusades, the tortures of the inquisition, the killings of Boko Haram, or the sophistic arguments of William Lane Craig.

[JesusHChrist]

Busy thread and hard to respond on a phone...

Thanks ether-ore for your considered reply. (Context of prior discussion hidden for brevity).

---

[quote='JesusHChrist' pid='878589' dateline='1424297370']

Do you believe the eye witness accounts of Vespasian curing the blind with spit? Eye witness accounts of Apolloius of Tyanna doing all sorts of Jesusy escapades? Mohamed's eyewitness testimony of cave-time with an Angel? The angry, mono-theistic god of Islam is consistent with the polytheism of Christianity and Mormonism?

What same story? What consistency and coherency?

Why do you accept these "reports" of the prophets as true, when many were written post-hoc? Daniel for example...

---

It is after all a choice isn't it? Each individual has to make this decision for himself.

Everything humans do is a choice, including ax murdering, deciding on dinner and playing the piano or guitar. An intellectually honest person keeps an open mind, examines the facts, eschews emotionalism and then makes decisions of any import based on available evidence. How do you pick a mortgage, buy a car, apply for a job, write a document for work? Why should claims about the supernatural be treated any differently?

So, what we are talking about is not the obvious fact we all have decisions to make, but more about the *process* of making those decisions.

When hanging a door, you could ask your dog how to go about it or, you could consult a home improvement book. Saying we have a choice to make, doesn't tell us anything, but there are clearly some approaches to decision making that are superior to others. Do you think all approaches have equal validity? Doubtful...

But, to answer you question:

The story is that Jesus Christ suffered, died, was buried and rose again the third day.

Key word - story. Other than the post-hoc, multi-decades later gospel fan fiction, there is zero historical support for this claim.

All of the Old Testament prophets testified of the mission of Jesus Christ.

Such as? The Jews would beg to differ...

All of the prophets witnessed, reported and prophesied of how God deals with His children's wickedness, their righteousness and gave them guidance on how they could be saved if they would but repent. I find all of the information in the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price to be consistent with each other in terms of the plan of salvation.

You do realize the Book of Abraham (one of the components of the Pearl of Great Price), is a known hoax? Smith claimed to translate the papyri, identified it as some ancient Jewish document, blah, blah. Turns out, it is nothing of the sort. Right there, if you are a true seeker, your alarm bells should be going off. There is no way to explain Smith's sham. And, even worse, he did it again, when some farmers brought him "plates" and he translated then. Turns out, the farmers' did their own hoax on Smith. The plates were fakes. Oops.

All of these records from the time of Moses (who recorded events prior to his time) up until the present testify of the same thing... that Jesus is the Christ. I, myself find these records to be consistent and coherent.

There is no evidence any such person existed. The story of the Exodus most certainly did not happen as described in the Bible, with 2.5 millions people wandering around the desert for 40 years. It simply didn't happen.

The other accounts you mentioned do not carry the same weight for me. Those reports are not corroborated by other records and neither do they cover a similar amount of time with the same degree of consistency.

Why would the length of time be a requirement for truth?

I've no doubt that my answer will not satisfy, but I'm really not trying to convince or convert anyone here. I'm just here to express an opinion. Never at any time did I expect my opinion to be accepted.

Correct, it does not satisfy even a cursory bullshit test. Smith was a money-digging con man and in the same manner as Paul and Mohamed before him and L Ron Hubbard afterwards, he made up his religion out of cobbled together bits of prior religions and his own fantasies. Syncretism is the polite word for it. Con artistry is more likely a better choice in Smith's case.

But I do wonder why you are here? Mormonism is no less silly than Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Scientology, but it is still very silly indeed.

If you have the stomach for it, please check out this site, which puts the lie to many of the Mormon Church's claims. No doubt, like any other cult response, you will use ad hominen attacks or claims of the source being corrupt (genetic fallacy) or whatever. What you won't be able to do it dispute the facts.

http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm

- The Book of Abraham, from Egyptian papyrus scrolls which came into his possession in 1835. He stated that the scrolls were written by the biblical Abraham "by his own hand." Smith's translation is now accepted as scripture by the LDS church, as part of its Pearl of Great Price. Smith also produced an "Egyptian Grammar" based on his translation. Modern scholars of ancient Egyptian agree that the scrolls are common Egyptian funeral scrolls, entirely pagan in nature, having nothing to do with Abraham, and from a period 2000 years later than Abraham. The "Grammar" has been said by Egyptologists to prove that Smith had no notion of the Egyptian language. It is pure fantasy: he made it up.

How is that any different than L Ron Hubbard pulling his Xenu/Thetan story out of his ass?

I was just responding to an original post and then tried to answer follow-up questions to the best of my ability.

Yes, we are tough crowd and have it heard it all before, many, many times, but I do admire you coming into the lion's den to engage with us. So a tip of the hat and a wag of the finger to you ether-ore.

[Esquilax]

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.

The problem is that appealing to god's nature in no way answers the question being asked, or advances the discussion even a little. It just pushes the problem back one level: why is god's nature to be considered good? Is god's nature good because god has defined good as those things that compose his nature? If so, morality is little more than fiat assertion based around the personal preferences of a subject, not an objective source. If god's nature is good because it conforms to standards of goodness, then moral goodness is a set of qualities external to god's nature, that god's nature just happens to adhere to. In that case, god himself is unnecessary for morality: he just happens to be an authoritative mouthpiece for a moral standard that he doesn't control, and does not require him.

This is the Euthyphro Dilemma, and it's something that theists have never been able to satisfactorily answer, in centuries.

So secular morality can come from any secular source, such as in China where parents kill their newborn daughters because society deems the boys to be the family heirs. And also because the secular government decides it's a good to only allow its citizens to have one child.

Do you think there's a rational justification for killing newborn daughters, Lek? Or for laws commanding that you only have one child? If not, then clearly this isn't a justifiable secular moral ideal, is it?

Like religious laws, secular moral laws can be either good, or bad. They aren't all one category because you can find one bad example. The difference is that secular morality allows for us to investigate and rationally examine morality and come to better conclusions over time, based in reason and empathy. By contrast, religious morality never allows for this, as it has staked its ideas in a purportedly ultimate authority that cannot be changed; it is exactly as good or as bad today as it was when it was written. There's nothing vital or capable of changing according to circumstances in it.

Please, don't then claim that christian morality is just good, now. Don't insult us both by doing that.

[robvalue]

I'm 0/2 but I'll take it as a compliment :p

[ether-ore]

[quote='ether-ore' pid='879106' dateline='1424358975']

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 don't know what cyclical and evolving have to do with whether or not the is something before or after this life. Yes, I believe I existed as a spirit child of God before I was born into mortality to gain a physical body. Ceasing to exist would be senseless were it not for the fact that I believe what the prophets of God have said concerning post mortal existence.

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?

I quite understand your feeling in this. What I will suggest, I am absolutely sure will not make sense to you, but I believe what the prophets say because the spirit of it feels right. There is no other way to explain it. It is indeed faith in the words of God through His prophets. I'm sure you will consider this nonsense, but there it is.

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.

Ridiculous indeed. It is not subjective because of subjective effect. You are right, that is just plain silly. It is subjective by definition, because the idea of cause and effect comes from only you (or the group you belong to which would then change the definition to 'relative') and not all people universally abide by your definition. There are other cultures (for example Sharia Law) which have a different set of standards.

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.

Justice must be paid. Christ voluntarily offered Himself to pay that debt out of love for us. If this is something you cannot accept, then there is little more I can say.

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.

Absolutely not. The lower kingdoms are governed by the higher kingdoms. The law still is in force and a punishment is affixed for breaking it. Unlike here in mortality where judgment is postponed until the test is over; punishment there will be immediate. You are not allowed to be in God's presence, but He still rules.

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.

You would only be happy if the punishment were permanent... and forever? The debt was paid by Christ's death. The is no law against resurrection. And because Christ was resurrected, so shall we all be just prior to judgment day in order to stand before God to be judged. You are in error if you think you could get away with murder, Yes your neighbor's spirit will still exist and will be resurrected, but he will petition God for retribution against you.

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.

I will make no comment here.

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.

Yes, as in you committed an offense against the law; the same as if you committed an offense against and earthly law.

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.

This is a mystery to me. I don't have an answer even for myself. I believe the law has existed co-eternally with God without beginning. I believe it is written, but these things I hold in suspense until such time as the truth of it is revealed.

[Surgenator]

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 don't know what cyclical and evolving have to do with whether or not the is something before or after this life.

Reincarnation could be considered cyclical. Instead of ceasing to exist, you are reborn into a new body without the memories of your past life.

Evolving would be similar to cyclical but you can be reincarnated into higher or lower lifeforms. And possibly to non-existence.

Yes, I believe I existed as a spirit child of God before I was born into mortality to gain a physical body. Ceasing to exist would be senseless were it not for the fact that I believe what the prophets of God have said concerning post mortal existence.

Now you have cheapen life.

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?

I quite understand your feeling in this. What I will suggest, I am absolutely sure will not make sense to you, but I believe what the prophets say because the spirit of it feels right. There is no other way to explain it. It is indeed faith in the words of God through His prophets. I'm sure you will consider this nonsense, but there it is.

Your right, I wouldn't understand it. I cannot understand how an internal feeling is objective. I cannot understand how an objective internal feeling can cause so many conflicting religions.

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.

Ridiculous indeed. It is not subjective because of subjective effect. You are right, that is just plain silly. It is subjective by definition, because the idea of cause and effect comes from only you (or the group you belong to which would then change the definition to 'relative') and not all people universally abide by your definition. There are other cultures (for example Sharia Law) which have a different set of standards.

Cause and effect does NOT come from me. It is the observable fact of reality. It is not subject to my beliefs just like gravity is not subject to my belief of it.

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.

Justice must be paid. Christ voluntarily offered Himself to pay that debt out of love for us. If this is something you cannot accept, then there is little more I can say.

Volunteering, innocence has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for the affects you caused, you bear its consequences. No one else.

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.

Absolutely not. The lower kingdoms are governed by the higher kingdoms. The law still is in force and a punishment is affixed for breaking it. Unlike here in mortality where judgment is postponed until the test is over; punishment there will be immediate. You are not allowed to be in God's presence, but He still rules.

So I'm not away from god since god's representative is still there. Plus, this place would not be a happy place since the happiness is forced from fear of punishment.

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.

You would only be happy if the punishment were permanent... and forever? The debt was paid by Christ's death. The is no law against resurrection. And because Christ was resurrected, so shall we all be just prior to judgment day in order to stand before God to be judged. You are in error if you think you could get away with murder, Yes your neighbor's spirit will still exist and will be resurrected, but he will petition God for retribution against you.

It doesn't matter what I prefer. It still cheapens death. For example, if I did something immoral, then god can just separated my spirit from my body and put it in a new body. Price paid independent of the degree of my immoral action.

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

Yes, as in you committed an offense against the law; the same as if you committed an offense against and earthly law.

Breaking the human laws is an offense to the citizens that made that law. It is not an offense to the law, just like I cannot offend the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Laws don't have feelings, people do.

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.

This is a mystery to me. I don't have an answer even for myself. I believe the law has existed co-eternally with God without beginning. I believe it is written, but these things I hold in suspense until such time as the truth of it is revealed.

Thank you for your honesty.

[Lek]

Do you think there's a rational justification for killing newborn daughters, Lek? Or for laws commanding that you only have one child? If not, then clearly this isn't a justifiable secular moral ideal, is it?

In my mind there isn't sufficient justification, but there probably is in their minds. Parents are concerned about keeping their wealth in the family and having someone to care for them in old age. Culturally, daughters belong to their husband's family. And I figure they justified the one child law as being for the good of the many by keeping the population down.

Like religious laws, secular moral laws can be either good, or bad. They aren't all one category because you can find one bad example. The difference is that secular morality allows for us to investigate and rationally examine morality and come to better conclusions over time, based in reason and empathy. By contrast, religious morality never allows for this, as it has staked its ideas in a purportedly ultimate authority that cannot be changed; it is exactly as good or as bad today as it was when it was written. There's nothing vital or capable of changing according to circumstances in it.

As far as secular morality goes, it's pretty much up to society to determine what is morally right, as in my China example. If the majority of a society determine that it's okay to kill your newborn child, it can pass for good morality.

Please, don't then claim that christian morality is just good, now. Don't insult us both by doing that.

Christian morality is just good. Please don't give me some gory example of something from the old testament and tell me they were following christian morality. Tell me what Jesus has taught me to be morally good and bad.