• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Purpose

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I hope @Sir Doom, the thread starter, will not mind if I add something I wrote some while back, because it fits precisely with the subject matter that he raises.
====================================================
Meaning and Purpose for the Secular Humanist

“Life’s a b!tch, then you die.”

I have long gathered, from believers I've known, that the only true meaning in life, and the purpose for our existence, has been provided for us by a “higher power.” As an atheist, I ought to concur with the nihilist view expressed in the opening quotation, yet I do not. But I've also never understood the religious view either. In this essay I hope to show that neither is true.

Created for a Purpose

Imagine that the universe and all it contains was created by an “intelligent designer.” Such a designer would surely have had reasons for such an effort, a purpose for the creation. Mankind, no more than a miniscule part of that creation, is unlikely to be able to grasp the fullness of the purpose for it. The best we should hope for is that we can muddle through and get it basically right – that we will fulfill our assigned bit of the overall purpose. But while we live, we can not know whether we have or have not done so.

Believers will tell us we have guides. The Torah, Bible, Qur’an, Vedas – whichever scriptures are believed – contain the plan and purpose for us to read and understand. For the secular, however, if these scriptures are meant to provide guidance, each of them constitutes among the worst instruction manuals ever conceived. Each of them is understood differently by every single reader. The best evidence of this is the proliferation of sects within every faith, based on alternate readings.

Yet even if we were able to discern completely our assigned purpose, that purpose would not be our own, but the designer’s. Consider for a moment the Belgian Blue cattle, bred by us to be double-muscled to provide more meat per animal. It is unlikely such an animal would be better off knowing for what purpose it was created. Those extra muscles have value for us, their designer, but none for the creature in its own right.

The same must hold true for me. As a creature with a purpose valuable only to another (the designer), I am stripped of value in my own right.

Now, most notions of a purpose given by the major religions are woefully inadequate. That my purpose might be simply to "believe," or to live a blameless life, so that I might be rewarded later for doing so (or punished otherwise), is a pretty weak basis for so great an act of creation. The idea that any god needs human praise, worship or service (God needs domestics?) is just plain silly. That these are what creation is about is simply ludicrous.

Then Why Am I Here?

There are endless answers to that question, all of them external to me, and most of them merely causal. “Because my parents had sex.” “Because Canada paid a ‘baby bonus’.” “Because DNA insists on its own replication.” These are all answers to the question, but don't satisfy. Nothing in those answers provides me with any meaning. There is nothing there to give my existence significance. Even less elevating is the notion that I am nothing more than the end of a long, completely natural and completely arbitrary process. Whoopee for me!

But perhaps, just perhaps, that is all that it is. The EvangelicalHumanist has never dogmatically denied the existence of an original creator, creative force or cosmic accident. EH doesn’t know how to understand the “first cause,” or even if there was one. But from that first cause on, there does seem to be sufficient evidence to explain a natural evolution from there-and-then to here-and-now.

So is that it then? Is the nihilism of the opening quote justified? Is there really no purpose or meaning to my existence? What “meaning” can arise from a cosmic accident, or from a long chain of natural, random events? These, too, answer the “why am I here question” in a merely causal sense, but not in a purposive way and thus never satisfy.

A Purpose of My Own

I said earlier that I believe I am the end of a natural but random series of events. This is not quite true. Since the appearance of conscious thought, people have been making choices, and every choice has an impact on what follows. I am who I am, in the world that I know, because early people followed herds; because the barons stood up to King John in 1215; because great thinkers thought; because of untold important and unimportant acts – of kindness or cruelty, hedonism or self-denial, selfishness or altruism. Because of all these and more, my world is what it is. Almost – but not quite – random.

But must that not mean that what follows me, how the world evolves from this very moment on, is to some extent – great or small – affected by me?

Now, at last, I have come to, and can choose, a purpose, a way to achieve a meaningful life that is my own, in my own right. I know that there will be a world post-me, just as I inhabit a world post-Hammurabi, post-Caesar, post-Genghis Khan and Hitler and Churchill. As they have contributed to the world I know, I will contribute to the world others will know, though certainly not to such extents as they did.

What will I do with that? What ultimate mark will my life leave on a world I shall never see, but will help to create?

Could I ask for a greater purpose?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I think you are advertising belief. Not necessarily the object of belief.

Sometimes I wonder whether theists are more concerned with belief, rather than what people believe. That would explain the stigma that some have against atheists, as opposed to a more mild disapproval against people who believe in a completely different God. Which is sort of weird. And self defeating.

Sounds like: I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or if you believe that the universe has been created by Mother Goose with a purpose for all humans. But please believe, for Ms. Goose sake!

Ciao

- viole

Personally, I believe that only Jesus Christ saves and that mankind cannot make a moral or justice or love utopia apart from the transformation enacted for believers from the cross.

The fact that some people are more open to God in general or the numinous without being atheist is not the true hope--especially since many atheists have a Paul-like conversion, and go from being avowed enemies of the Christ to humbled, fervent supporters. Some of the finest apologists of the past two centuries started as atheists.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Personally, I believe that only Jesus Christ saves and that mankind cannot make a moral or justice or love utopia apart from the transformation enacted for believers from the cross.

The fact that some people are more open to God in general or the numinous without being atheist is not the true hope--especially since many atheists have a Paul-like conversion, and go from being avowed enemies of the Christ to humbled, fervent supporters. Some of the finest apologists of the past two centuries started as atheists.

Suppose, hypothetically, that there are only two possible worlds:

1) There is God, but nobody believes in Him
2) There is no God, but everyone believes there is

You can plug God = The Christian God.

Which world would you choose?

Ciao

- viole
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Suppose, hypothetically, that there are only two possible worlds:

1) There is God, but nobody believes in Him
2) There is no God, but everyone believes there is

You can plug God = The Christian God.

Which world would you choose?

Ciao

- viole

We live in 1) to an extent, where skeptics fight believers

If we live in 2) welcome to the asylum, as I'm one of the asylum masters, deluded

Enjoy!
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
We live in 1) to an extent, where skeptics fight believers

But you like it. Christians like to be oppressed. Makes you feel like your favorite hero. However, we have done some progress. We laugh instead to send you to the lions.

Although I am not so sure which one you prefer.

If we live in 2) welcome to the asylum, as I'm one of the asylum masters, deluded
Enjoy!

Well, this is not contentious. We are already in an asylum. From your point of view you must believe that MOST of people are and were severely deluded, since only a minority is and was Christian, including Catholics, Mormons, and whatever Christian sects there are.

What is mind boggling to me is how you can trust your own belief when it has the same shape and form of beliefs that must be, from your point of view, completely deluded.

So. You did not answer. Which one do you prefer?

Ciao

- viole
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
But you like it. Christians like to be oppressed. Makes you feel like your favorite hero. However, we have done some progress. We laugh instead to send you to the lions.

Although I am not so sure which one you prefer.



Well, this is not contentious. We are already in an asylum. From your point of view you must believe that MOST of people are and were severely deluded, since only a minority is and was Christian, including Catholics, Mormons, and whatever Christian sects there are.

What is mind boggling to me is how you can trust your own belief when it has the same shape and form of beliefs that must be, from your point of view, completely deluded.

So. You did not answer. Which one do you prefer?

Ciao

- viole

I don't like to receive persecution, no one does except atheist martyrs who haunt religious forums to tell EVERYONE they're wrong. At least I tell Christians they're right. :)

I don't prefer one over the other.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
At least I tell Christians they're right. :)
Let's be honest. You only tell some Christians they're right. You tell many, many Christians they're wrong. If professing Christians have any differences of opinion with you, you simply dismiss them as not being Christian at all. I'm curious as to your take on Catholicism. There is much in Catholicism that is not in line with evangelical Christianity. If you think they're not real Christians, then you've just excluded by far the largest segment of Christianity.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I don't like to receive persecution, no one does except atheist martyrs who haunt religious forums to tell EVERYONE they're wrong. At least I tell Christians they're right. :)

I don't prefer one over the other.
So, they are the same for you. Whether God exists or not, is not what really counts for you. There are offsetting circumstances that might make His existence not so important after all. Cool, I took a note of that.

And I never said you are wrong. I challenge you to find a post where I said that.
However, it would be great if you were wrong. The problem is that you are not even that.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Let's be honest. You only tell some Christians they're right. You tell many, many Christians they're wrong. If professing Christians have any differences of opinion with you, you simply dismiss them as not being Christian at all. I'm curious as to your take on Catholicism. There is much in Catholicism that is not in line with evangelical Christianity. If you think they're not real Christians, then you've just excluded by far the largest segment of Christianity.

I AM honest. ANYONE, whatever their sect, IMHO, who is trusting their own righteousness to save them rather than the Cross, is unsaved IMHO. Sure. The LDS gospel reminds me of the Catholic gospel in many ways including:

1) The Bible has good stuff but Church Tradition (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, etc.) tells us the REAL way to Heaven/Heavenly blessings
2) Jesus gave us some good examples, but did not really die on the Cross to set people free from religious bondage
3) The more works we do, the better Jesus loves, us since Jesus's love/God's love is conditional, based on obedience
4) People who leave Rome (LDS) to pursue any other path are deceived, and God cannot give them all the best He desires for them
5) When you get right down to it, we are our own Saviors
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I AM honest. ANYONE, whatever their sect, IMHO, who is trusting their own righteousness to save them rather than the Cross, is unsaved IMHO.
How many times to I have to tell you that we don't trust our own righteousness to save us? I mean, seriously, this isn't the first time we've had this conversation, and this is why I get frustrated talking to you. No matter what I (or any other Mormon) tells you, you continue to ignore it and insist that we believe something else entirely. It's just hard to want to keep trying to get through to you because you don't want to understand what we really believe. You just want to keep believing what you've always believed about us, even when we correct your misundersandings.

The LDS gospel reminds me of the Catholic gospel in many ways including:

1) The Bible has good stuff but Church Tradition (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, etc.) tells us the REAL way to Heaven/Heavenly blessings
2) Jesus gave us some good examples, but did not really die on the Cross to set people free from religious bondage
3) The more works we do, the better Jesus loves, us since Jesus's love/God's love is conditional, based on obedience
4) People who leave Rome (LDS) to pursue any other path are deceived, and God cannot give them all the best He desires for them
5) When you get right down to it, we are our own Saviors
Actually, you just paid me a compliment without realizing it. I believe Mormonism has much more in common with Catholicism that it does with Protestantism, but that doesn't mean I don't believe Protestants are not Christians in every sense of the word. Now I'll address each of the five points you just made.

1. The Bible is incomplete. The Bible actually tells us that if everything Jesus ever said or did had been written down, it would fill more than all the books in the world. You may feel that what whatever wasn't written down wasn't important, and that's your prerogative. When you stop to consider that Jesus' ministry lasted a full three years, you've got to admit that the four gospel accounts of His ministry really don't cover all that much. We have an accounting of a few of His conversations with people, His answers to questions He asked and a handful of sermons. Was He just talking about the likelihood of an upcoming storm on the Sea of Galilee or the price of a good sheep for all of the hundreds of hours of His time that we have no record of? I don't think He was.

2. Holy Cow! Do you really think this is what Mormons and Catholics believe? Jesus definitely gave us some good examples, but the greatest thing He did was take our sins upon Himself and endure the punishment for those sins in our place. He experienced unspeakable mental anguish in Gethsemane as He felt the suffering of all mankind, even of those who would ultimately reject Him. He died in agony on Calvary for us. His innocent blood was spilled as a sacrifice for us because He was the only perfect man who had ever lived. And as God, He had the power to raise himself from the dead, opening the door for each of us to be resurrected. That is what I believe Jesus did for me and for you. Why would you continue to insist that I don't believe He really died on the cross for us?

3. God loves us all equally, but it is understandable that He would be pleased when we obey His commandments and disappointed when we don't.

4. The Bible does tell us that he who endures to the end shall be saved. That said, God alone can know the condition of a person's heart. Any Mormon who would suggest otherwise doesn't really understand his religion. As LDS Apostle, Dieter F. Uchtdorf explained, "The more we learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the more we realize that endings here in mortality are not endings at all."

5. That's absolutely absurd, and no Mormon would ever say that. You are intentionally misrepresenting LDS theology. We both know that; only you know why.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
How many times to I have to tell you that we don't trust our own righteousness to save us? I mean, seriously, this isn't the first time we've had this conversation, and this is why I get frustrated talking to you. No matter what I (or any other Mormon) tells you, you continue to ignore it and insist that we believe something else entirely. It's just hard to want to keep trying to get through to you because you don't want to understand what we really believe. You just want to keep believing what you've always believed about us, even when we correct your misundersandings.

Actually, you just paid me a compliment without realizing it. I believe Mormonism has much more in common with Catholicism that it does with Protestantism, but that doesn't mean I don't believe Protestants are not Christians in every sense of the word. Now I'll address each of the five points you just made.

1. The Bible is incomplete. The Bible actually tells us that if everything Jesus ever said or did had been written down, it would fill more than all the books in the world. You may feel that what whatever wasn't written down wasn't important, and that's your prerogative. When you stop to consider that Jesus' ministry lasted a full three years, you've got to admit that the four gospel accounts of His ministry really don't cover all that much. We have an accounting of a few of His conversations with people, His answers to questions He asked and a handful of sermons. Was He just talking about the likelihood of an upcoming storm on the Sea of Galilee or the price of a good sheep for all of the hundreds of hours of His time that we have no record of? I don't think He was.

2. Holy Cow! Do you really think this is what Mormons and Catholics believe? Jesus definitely gave us some good examples, but the greatest thing He did was take our sins upon Himself and endure the punishment for those sins in our place. He experienced unspeakable mental anguish in Gethsemane as He felt the suffering of all mankind, even of those who would ultimately reject Him. He died in agony on Calvary for us. His innocent blood was spilled as a sacrifice for us because He was the only perfect man who had ever lived. And as God, He had the power to raise himself from the dead, opening the door for each of us to be resurrected. That is what I believe Jesus did for me and for you. Why would you continue to insist that I don't believe He really died on the cross for us?

3. God loves us all equally, but it is understandable that He would be pleased when we obey His commandments and disappointed when we don't.

4. The Bible does tell us that he who endures to the end shall be saved. That said, God alone can know the condition of a person's heart. Any Mormon who would suggest otherwise doesn't really understand his religion. As LDS Apostle, Dieter F. Uchtdorf explained, "The more we learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the more we realize that endings here in mortality are not endings at all."

5. That's absolutely absurd, and no Mormon would ever say that. You are intentionally misrepresenting LDS theology. We both know that; only you know why.

I hear you loud and clear, "LDS doesn't teach trust our righteousness to save", however:

1) LDS has some unique perspectives on the person, deity, birth and etc. of the Savior
2) LDS members have told me multiple times my righteousness/God's righteousness as an evangelical is lacking and I can do better by performing works as a member of LDS

I never said, per your note, by the way, that "what is outside the Bible is unimportant," I did say the Bible is unique and says of itself that it reveals the true God and eternal life, and that false prophets would come after Christ, emphasizing their primacy, contradicting the Bible, and adding to the Bible, for example, my child of some ten years old, after watching an LDS video reenacting the Father's initial appearance to a young Joseph Smith, said "That's not right!" knowing that the Bible has statements including: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known," and "46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life."

I appreciate your declarations about Jesus, now please tell me why you believe the Savior can only save "after all we can do", which means He cannot really save, and why "after all we can do" directly contradicts Romans 4:

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them
.”

"Maybe Christ can save after we go the extra miles" is indeed a commonality between LDS and Rome, as many have noted. IMHO, I got a salvation gift, not a command to go on mission for two years to get members of the body universal to leave their sects to join the "better church".

God loves us all equally, but it is understandable that He would be pleased when we obey His commandments and disappointed when we don't.

100% true, and Christians who sin receive chastisement, see Hebrews 12, but not true at all regarding salvation, which is explained over and again in the Bible as deserving for none, charitable for all--a free gift.

The Bible does tell us that he who endures to the end shall be saved.

1) It also says, "unless you abide in this ship, you cannot be saved [from drowning]" -- not every salvation word in the Bible is for a soul
2) You are using an LDS apologetic that lets some verses be true in the Bible but not others

When you get right down to it, we are our own Saviors--is true if God is UNABLE to save me until I've "done all I can do to save MYSELF."

Or put another way, as I understand it:

1) I am saved by Jesus Christ on the cross, having trusted Him, not me or my works, to save
2) I can do many things, although not all are helpful, and still be saved
3) I cannot do "anything"--God lives in me, so I cannot willfully worship Satan or murder someone, I just don't think I can do it--but I really could do anything and never lose salvation now

So why should I join the LDS church, please? What benefit will I gain, do you think?

Finally, the Bible HAS TO BE incomplete for Smith and the LDS prophets to be true, however, I can share with you literally thousands of passages that say the Bible is the direct word of the Lord, and hundreds of passages showing it true and complete, and hundreds of passages where it contradicts LDS scripture and doctrine.

Thanks for your patience with me.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I appreciate your declarations about Jesus, now please tell me why you believe the Savior can only save "after all we can do", which means He cannot really save, and why "after all we can do" directly contradicts Romans 4:

When you get right down to it, we are our own Saviors--is true if God is UNABLE to save me until I've "done all I can do to save MYSELF."
I'm super busy today and don't know how much time I'm going to have to post. I wanted to address this one issue, though, since you clearly don't understand how we interpret 2 Nephi 25:23 (which is the the passage non-Mormons love to use to prove that Mormons believe we can save ourselves). Those verses say, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." "After all we can do" means nothing more than "after all is said and done." It doesn't mean that if we don't measure up and fill every supposed "requirement" for salvation, that Christ's Atonement won't save us. Nobody who has ever lived has ever done "all he can do." If I needed to do "all I can do" to be saved before I am able to be a recipient of Christ's grace, then I'm already damned, because there are plenty of times I could have done more. I can't go back in time and change the past; I have already failed to do "all I can do." Furthermore, when you use the word "UNABLE" in speaking of God's ability to save us, you imply that we don't believe God is powerful enough to save us and that He requires our help. Nothing could be further from the truth. We love the Lord and we want to be obedient to Him and keep His commandments. God knows our hearts and understands our limitations and struggles. He wants us to give Him our all, and most of us try to do that -- but, it's not because we don't believe we're going to be saved unless we've done "all we can do."
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I'm super busy today and don't know how much time I'm going to have to post. I wanted to address this one issue, though, since you clearly don't understand how we interpret 2 Nephi 25:23 (which is the the passage non-Mormons love to use to prove that Mormons believe we can save ourselves). Those verses say, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." "After all we can do" means nothing more than "after all is said and done." It doesn't mean that if we don't measure up and fill every supposed "requirement" for salvation, that Christ's Atonement won't save us. Nobody who has ever lived has ever done "all he can do." If I needed to do "all I can do" to be saved before I am able to be a recipient of Christ's grace, then I'm already damned, because there are plenty of times I could have done more. I can't go back in time and change the past; I have already failed to do "all I can do." Furthermore, when you use the word "UNABLE" in speaking of God's ability to save us, you imply that we don't believe God is powerful enough to save us and that He requires our help. Nothing could be further from the truth. We love the Lord and we want to be obedient to Him and keep His commandments. God knows our hearts and understands our limitations and struggles. He wants us to give Him our all, and most of us try to do that -- but, it's not because we don't believe we're going to be saved unless we've done "all we can do."

I see, so you are saying that LDS teaches eternal assurance for all persons who've trusted Jesus to be born again? That is, that Jesus saves fallible humans (all humans) to the uttermost who personally trust Him?

Put differently,

Does LDS teach all persons are saved or some are saved?

Does LDS teach that individuals who trust in Christ can lose their standing/eternal life with Christ?

Does LDS teach that all who trust in Christ enter Heaven?

Thanks for your time.
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
I see, so you are saying that LDS teaches eternal assurance for all persons who've trusted Jesus to be born again? That is, that Jesus saves fallible humans (all humans) to the uttermost who personally trust Him?
LDS do indeed believe that Christ saves men who put their trust/faith in Him.
Does LDS teach all persons are saved or some are saved?
All people will live again, forever, with boundless mind-blowing happiness. Those whom embrace Christ has all the greater joy in Him.
Does LDS teach that individuals who trust in Christ can lose their standing/eternal life with Christ?
LDS do not proclaim OSAS: a person always has a choice.
Does LDS teach that all who trust in Christ enter Heaven?
Yes.
Thanks for your time.
Not a problem :)
 

siti

Well-Known Member
There's something extremely profound in that we are made of the very stuff we are experiencing. I recently found a fascinating talk on the idea of consciousness boundaries
I liked the video. And I agree with a lot of what she says. But I do think she oversimplifies a bit (and I don't mean that she hasn't understood properly or didn't get deep enough - but bear with me while I explain)...

She quotes the old Alfred Korzybski maxim "the map is not the territory" but I also think you have to take Gregory Bateson's qualifier on board too "all we have are maps of maps" (something like that not sure if I am quoting accurately). We can only "live in the moment" momentarily and then its gone - like when Moses was trying to "see" God but could only see his "back" - as fast as he tried to see, there he (God) was - gone! The moment is like that I reckon - once you find it its gone already. And that is where purpose comes in - we are "purposive" - reality is "purposive" - it is (we are) always on our way to "somewhere else" - some "moment" that is not this one - even if that "somewhere else" is just the next key press on my keyboard...its a "project", a "purpose" I am involved in - and - and this is crucial - it IS a map whether I like it or not because projects and purposes are not "in the moment" - they can't be because the have duration.

To truly "live in the moment" is to abandon our "projects" and "purposes" and involve ourselves "momentarily" in "projects" and "purposes" not our own - because the "moment" we are in is a tangled mess of the nested and overlapping "projects" and "purposes" of other processes (I don't say "beings" or "entities" because they are not - or at least not necessarily - that). We are "free" - but we are not free to stay there. We must go back to our map, we have no choice but to take up our own "purpose" and pick up our own "projects" again - or cease to "be".

I think she is right that the moment happens "effortlessly by itself", it takes no effort to be "in the moment" - but the effort to make no effort ruins it. That can't be a "project" I don't think - so I'm not sure that one can "learn" it either. It can't be a "purpose" because it is the denial of purpose. It is the denial of "being". But we can't be there all the time or we would cease to "be" at all.

She says "we try to live in the maps" as if this is the wrong thing to do - but the map (our map) is our most authentic experience of our "self". And that map - our map of our "self" - is our purpose - its who and what we are (to ourselves) and want to be. If I don't live in that map, am I really me? And yet she's right - its not real. Reality is the moment - and it certainly isn't (at least not all of it) of our own making. But the map too is part of the moment - its is, at least partly what brought us to the moment even if we weren't expecting it. "All we have are maps of maps". And somewhere in them are our purposes - and we put them there - and its up to us to find them again and make them ours again with each moment.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
LDS do indeed believe that Christ saves men who put their trust/faith in Him.

All people will live again, forever, with boundless mind-blowing happiness. Those whom embrace Christ has all the greater joy in Him.

LDS do not proclaim OSAS: a person always has a choice.

Yes.

Not a problem :)

And . . . it is perhaps a relief that LDS is a Christian cult, and not a mere cult IMO? Hell is explicit in the scriptures--LDS scriptures therefore contradict the Holy Bible.

Isaiah 8:20 in the New Living Translation: "Look to God's instructions and teachings! People who contradict his Word are completely in the dark."
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
And . . . it is perhaps a relief that LDS is a Christian cult, and not a mere cult IMO? Hell is explicit in the scriptures--LDS scriptures therefore contradict the Holy Bible.

Isaiah 8:20 in the New Living Translation: "Look to God's instructions and teachings! People who contradict his Word are completely in the dark."
@BilliardsBall every time I think we (the LDS) are making some headway into helping you understand our theology, you let us down by saying something hateful and malicious. You're really just looking for reasons to justify your contempt for us. @Jane.Doe did not say that there was no such place as Hell. She simply indicated the place of eternal torment you believe so many, many of God's children are destined for is not, in fact, eternal at all. Those who refuse to embrace Jesus Christ and accept His atoning sacrifice will be punished for their own sins throughout the Millennium -- not in a "Lake of Fire", though, but in the "Spirit Prison," which, I can assure you they would describe as "hell" -- and will rise in the Second Resurrection to enter Heaven at that time. By then, these people too will have come to the realization that Jesus is the Christ. They too will acknowledge Him but will not receive the benefit of His having paid for their sins. The only ones whose sins cannot be forgiven and who will spend eternity completely removed from God's glory are those who committed blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. This may not be what you believe, but it's high time you came to the realization that everyone who disagrees with you is not part of a "cult," but part of Christianity, despite the fact that they understand certain Christian doctrines differently than you do. Why must you behave in such an un-Christlike manner?
 
Last edited:

Jane.Doe

Active Member
And . . . it is perhaps a relief that LDS is a Christian cult, and not a mere cult IMO? Hell is explicit in the scriptures--LDS scriptures therefore contradict the Holy Bible.

Isaiah 8:20 in the New Living Translation: "Look to God's instructions and teachings! People who contradict his Word are completely in the dark."
Katz beat to this response.
 
Top