Jesus wedding shower on abc tonight

[Mel-o-rama]

You'll have to excuse me for being brief (brief for me that is), since I'm in finishing mode.

To Supersonic: It's clear that you think you understand the Bible better than anyone else on the forum. Yet, you don't seem to realize that some of the points you are raising may seem contrary to some other Christians who are not Mormons. I know they've been holding back since we're kind of talking about Mormon doctrine right now. I do not doubt that you have a very good understanding of the Bible (which I admire), but your interpretations are not necessarily correct. Consistency is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an indication of Reality.

To Todd: About Original Sin: I'm the one who's equating "sinful" to the potential to sin. I'm presenting a consistent interpretation of scripture that provides an alternative to the "Original Sin" concept. I know we may be arguing semantics, but there is an important distinction. I see only the potential to sin and "sin" with a lower-case s, and it seems that you see the potential, "sin", and "Sin".

It's clear that we disagree on these nitpicky details, but if you insist that the Original Sin concept doesn't lead people to believe they have a free ticket to sin, then I'll say whichever way we believe - the results are the same. We both choose not to sin when the time comes. However, I have seen from my own experience that some people do take advantage of having been saved.

About death: You may need to understand more Mormon doctrine to realize that death is a good thing (in general). For one thing, it enables us to go on to the next world (hopefully in Heaven). It also keeps the world population down. Death, pain, weeds, etc. all seem to be bad, but they exist to build our character, and also to help us appreciate the opposites - life, joy, not-weed-plants, etc.

About the fruit of knowledge: Is it ever a bad thing to have knowledge?

About Godhood: I'm a little hesistant to go down that path considering some of the audience. It might be a little difficult to understand, especially for those who are already sure that Mormonism is wrong, and I'm a little regretful for bringing it back up in hindsight.

I will say this much for now: When Jesus was on this earth, he claimed to be the Son of God. (Did he say this with pride? :P ) Those who heard him called him a heretic and wanted to stone him. Was Jesus wrong?

Okay, so I wasn't that brief.

[Course 4 Escapee]

Originally Posted by CubedBee

It sounds like you are denying God's role/ability as creator. We've been discussing the first couple chapters of Genesis--read them again for an answer to your first question. All things come from God, but God does not need raw materials to create. Before God creates, there is nothingness.

Since when does creation equate to making something out of nothing? If you create a cake, you are putting together ingredients in such a fashion that the sum of their parts gives you a cake.

How does saying that matter existed in some raw form prior to God assembling it into the universe or humanity deny God's role or power in the Creation?

I find the concept of an eternal existence that goes on forever but had a finite beginning to be incongruous.

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by Mel-o-rama

You'll have to excuse me for being brief (brief for me that is), since I'm in finishing mode.

To Todd: About Original Sin: I'm the one who's equating "sinful" to the potential to sin. I'm presenting a consistent interpretation of scripture that provides an alternative to the "Original Sin" concept. I know we may be arguing semantics, but there is an important distinction. I see only the potential to sin and "sin" with a lower-case s, and it seems that you see the potential, "sin", and "Sin".

I didn't ask this before, but I don't see the difference between "sin" and "Sin". I don't think you understand what I mean when I use the term "Original Sin". "Original Sin" is the original sin (eating the forbidden fruit). "Original Sin" is not the curse, but resulted in the curse.

It's clear that we disagree on these nitpicky details, but if you insist that the Original Sin concept doesn't lead people to believe they have a free ticket to sin, then I'll say whichever way we believe - the results are the same. We both choose not to sin when the time comes. However, I have seen from my own experience that some people do take advantage of having been saved.

Again I don't think Original Sin is directly related to this issue you bring up. You are questioning the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone. Funny you say that we really agree on this issue and are debating mere semantics, but you know we don't, otherwise you wouldn't have made this argument.

Let me clarify the amazing advantage of salvation by grace alone. First of all, if you believe that your works can save you (partly or wholly), then it is no longer by grace you are saved. Grace is unmerited and unearned. Now a question, are you more likely to give thanks to someone who gave you entirely out of his generosity, or if you had worked for the reward? I personally think we will give more praise to God if we had not earned the reward. Also, if God gives to us freely, then, if we follow his example, we can also show grace to our neighbours. Our bodies our programmed according to law. You do this, you get that. It is through the Spirit that we learn that it is by grace we live our lives, and not by law. Remember what Jesus said to the rich man who claimed to have kept the commandments since his youth? You must give all you have to the poor. The rich man was trying to earn his way of salvation, but Jesus made it clear that his method was doomed to failure. Also remember Jesus' answer to the question, "what works must we do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus said the works God requires is to believe in the one he has sent.

About death: You may need to understand more Mormon doctrine to realize that death is a good thing (in general). For one thing, it enables us to go on to the next world (hopefully in Heaven). It also keeps the world population down. Death, pain, weeds, etc. all seem to be bad, but they exist to build our character, and also to help us appreciate the opposites - life, joy, not-weed-plants, etc.

Spiritual death is not a good thing, not even for a Mormon. I can see how some of these things build character, but these things don't exist in heaven, and didn't exist in God's original creation, for a reason, I think.

About the fruit of knowledge: Is it ever a bad thing to have knowledge?

Tough question. I would say yes, but it's too time consuming to elaborate.

About Godhood: I'm a little hesistant to go down that path considering some of the audience. It might be a little difficult to understand, especially for those who are already sure that Mormonism is wrong, and I'm a little regretful for bringing it back up in hindsight.

We could continue this conversation through PM, if you prefer. How am I to understand Mormon doctrine without someone explaining it to me? Also, the Book of Mormon doesn't explain it, perhaps "Doctrines and Covenants" does, I haven't read that yet, nor do I have a copy.

I will say this much for now: When Jesus was on this earth, he claimed to be the Son of God. (Did he say this with pride? :P ) Those who heard him called him a heretic and wanted to stone him. Was Jesus wrong?

No Jesus wasn't wrong, he was God! I am definitely not.

[cubedbee]

Originally Posted by Six-time Course 4 Loser

Since when does creation equate to making something out of nothing? If you create a cake, you are putting together ingredients in such a fashion that the sum of their parts gives you a cake.

How does saying that matter existed in some raw form prior to God assembling it into the universe or humanity deny God's role or power in the Creation?

I find the concept of an eternal existence that goes on forever but had a finite beginning to be incongruous.

Creation refers to bringing something into existence. I would argue that all the universe is is a bunch of matter and energy, and this is what God created in Genesis 1:1. All the more typical objects we see in our universe were created after this first creative act of God. What exactly did God create at the very beginning if it wasn't the matter he used to form the universe we know out of?

Now, if God did use some sort of raw materials for creation of our universe, where did the raw materials come from? Were they created or did they exist eternally just like God? You seem to be arguing that they existed eternally. While this might not be untenable, the position that our souls/spirits/being has existed eternally is. We are created beings of God. This is made clear throughout the Bible and is the reason we worship God. God cannot create us if we have existed eternally. That is much more incongruous to me than the belief that God has the power to create something which will last eternally.

[Course 4 Escapee]

Originally Posted by CubedBee

Creation refers to bringing something into existence. I would argue that all the universe is is a bunch of matter and energy, and this is what God created in Genesis 1:1. All the more typical objects we see in our universe were created after this first creative act of God. What exactly did God create at the very beginning if it wasn't the matter he used to form the universe we know out of?

Now, if God did use some sort of raw materials for creation of our universe, where did the raw materials come from? Were they created or did they exist eternally just like God? You seem to be arguing that they existed eternally. While this might not be untenable, the position that our souls/spirits/being has existed eternally is. We are created beings of God. This is made clear throughout the Bible and is the reason we worship God. God cannot create us if we have existed eternally. That is much more incongruous to me than the belief that God has the power to create something which will last eternally.

I would argue that all matter, spritual and physical, has always existed just as God has. It is through God's infinite power that this material has been taken and given form and purpose.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

[Paul Brand]

Six-Time,

Do you believe that God is timeless?

[Course 4 Escapee]

Yes

[Paul Brand]

Do you believe that there is "timeless" matter? Do you believe that our pre-mortal spirits were timeless? Do you believe that time did not have a beginning? (Sorry for the leading questions, I need to ask them to understand where we agree and disagree).

[Mel-o-rama]

On Original Sin: I think I'm responding to more than one person on this. Someone somewhere explained the difference between "sin" and "Sin", where "Sin" is that thing that is passed on to Adam's children. It is the "Sin" we are all born with even though we had not yet done anything wrong. It is this "Sin" that I do not agree with. I do agree that we have inherited the potential to sin from Adam. I also would "allow" the act of eating the fruit to be called the "Original Sin" (though I might say "transgression" :P ), but I would not agree that we (Adam's children) need to be punished for that "sin", but rather for our own sins, which we are sure to commit. The Bible seems to confirm that we will indeed be punished for our own sins, and that we will suffer the curses arising from that "Original Sin", but nowhere does it say that we will be punished for anyone else's sins.

On death: Of course I meant that physical death was a good thing. Eating the fruit made physical death a surety and spiritual death a possibility. Of course, without Christ's atonement, the sins we would commit would ensure our not entering into heaven (as SS says, the wages of sin is death). Christ died for us so that we would overcome physical death in the resurrection, and so that we might be able to overcome spiritual death.
[quote="Todd"]
Let me clarify the amazing advantage of salvation by grace alone. First of all, if you believe that your works can save you (partly or wholly), then it is no longer by grace you are saved. Grace is unmerited and unearned. Now a question, are you more likely to give thanks to someone who gave you entirely out of his generosity, or if you had worked for the reward? I personally think we will give more praise to God if we had not earned the reward. Also, if God gives to us freely, then, if we follow his example, we can also show grace to our neighbours. Our bodies our programmed according to law. You do this, you get that. It is through the Spirit that we learn that it is by grace we live our lives, and not by law. Remember what Jesus said to the rich man who claimed to have kept the commandments since his youth? You must give all you have to the poor. The rich man was trying to earn his way of salvation, but Jesus made it clear that his method was doomed to failure. Also remember Jesus' answer to the question, "what works must we do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus said the works God requires is to believe in the one he has sent.
[\quote]
I have to admit that you presented this differently than what I'm used to. Intriguing. I can see the passing on of grace to others.

Here's my counterpoint. I would undoubtly give more thanks to the person who gave to me entirely out of generosity, but I would also truly feel more guilty. I would want to do something to make up for it. Take for example the man who carried Jesus' cross. He must have understood what Jesus was doing for him, yet he helped him. The New Testament goes on to tell us we need to bear our own crosses. We need to do our parts.

You say that Jesus' grace is unmerited and unearned, but if I understand correctly, there is one thing you have to do in order to "earn" it. You have to believe in Christ. If Jesus' grace were truly unmerited, unearned and freely given to all, then all would be saved, but you seem to believe that there are some who are not going to be saved.

Mormons do believe that Jesus has freely given his grace so that we may be saved. We believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but we also believe that the person who will not do good works cannot be saved. Thus grace and works work together gracefully.

Originally Posted by todd

No Jesus wasn't wrong, he was God! I am definitely not.

My point here is that one can't conclude that if something seems to be a heresy that it is wrong doctrine. That's all I meant there.

[Course 4 Escapee]

Originally Posted by Todd

Do you believe that there is "timeless" matter? Do you believe that our pre-mortal spirits were timeless? Do you believe that time did not have a beginning? (Sorry for the leading questions, I need to ask them to understand where we agree and disagree).

I believe that spirits are comprised of a form of matter, but we didn't always exist as spirits.

God created us as spirits, in other words, he took the matter which spirits are comprised of and formed us into intelligent entities. So in that respect, we had a beginning. Our identities as spiritual entities have a beginning, but the spiritual matter of which we are comprised does not.