I am a non-believer and have some questions

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Look at the first sentence in your post and compare it to the last.

A. Up top you said that your problems with belief in God have nothing to do with God's moral standards.
B. You ended by saying you believe God is vile or cruel because of how he might treat you.

Now by the law of non-contradiction both of those statements cannot be true. One can be, none can be, but both can't be true. So which one, if either is true?

Basically your saying that God must do as you wish you wish or he does not exist. It seems what you want a God that offers either compulsory annihilation, damnation, or heaven for everyone regardless of whether it is Hitler or Billy graham. That would be the most unjust God imaginable.

However, forget all that. I gave you specific historical claims among hundreds I can post that the best rained scholars (NT historians) believe are reliable. You said you do not know anything about that evidence. So if you know nothing about the evidence for God's existence then what again are you basing your denial on. If you know nothing about evidence then preference is all that is left. You did not even ask for me to give you more evidence. I do not think evidence has anything to do with your position.

I was treating my undecided position and the position of me leaning towards Christianity being nonsense independently. I was first looking at my undecided position alone and that was due to an honest open mindset when looking at all the claimed evidence out there.

I then looked at my leaning towards Christianity being nonsense and that was due to an honest open mindset that disagrees with the morals of the Christian God. Therefore, my undecided position alone has nothing to do with my disagreement with God's moral nature. Rather, my leaning towards Christianity being nonsense is due to my disagreement with God's moral nature.

Also, as you read my posts here in this topic, I did say that everyone should go to heaven, but that there should at least be some punishment for wrongdoing. I did not say that everyone should automatically go to heaven if that is what you were assuming I was saying. I also never said that I did not know anything about the evidence. I instead said that I looked up all that evidence in the past and remained undecided, but forgot what I've learned and read back then since this was just a one-time thing.

It was not a situation where I wish to dedicate my life and learn a certain subject such as neuroscience in which it would not just be a one-time thing; it would instead be a matter of me pursuing an education and training in neuroscience and actually remembering that information I've learned.

Lastly, I do not care what more claimed evidence you present to me here. Based on the fact that I have read and looked into all I possibly could in the past and have still remain undecided, then chances are highly likely that whatever more claimed evidence you present to me now would still have me undecided.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To answer your last point first, Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But you are mistaken about Daniel. The prophecy is in (off the top of my head) Eze and Jer. It was written about 250 years before it occurred - so hindsight is quite impossible. And, it describes (before it happened, remember) that 'he' (A/Great) would build a bridge out to Tyre and destroy the city. The bridge was about a half mile long (history tells us) and A/G used the shoreline city's wood, bricks and dirt to build it- just as it was prophesied. Look it up online bc I don't have time now. Also, look up other fulfilled biblical prophecies. There are hundreds of them. Compare them to other religion's fulfilled prophecies - you will see a big difference.

Can't figure out why you won't tell me where you find prophecy about Alexander in Ezekial and Jeremiah. I've looked, but they don't mention him at all. Of course, I tend not to read in everything I've ever wanted to symbolic writing, mostly because I assume that it isn't there. But at least be kind enough to point me to the texts, so that I an properly evaluate for myself.

Meantime, you don't deny what I say about when Daniel was written, merely deflect to other texts that you claim say the same thing.

As to the "hundreds of" "fulfilled prophecies," you might also consider reading a non-religious analysis of many of them -- The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It isn't taken in that context, tho. He said it in relation to His next appearance, the Rapture. He also exposed others before they came on earth's stage by saying if they say they have seen the Christ they are liars (paraphrased but spot on).

Please re-read what you wrote, and to which I responded:

Jesus stated that when He comes again ALL people will see His return. That could only occur if He was looking forward, as none other could have, and saw our day. Why (how?) could someone in that day make such an astounding, and insane, statement if He didn't know what the future held? And, the fact that we have the capability (since CNN came online in the Gulf war) to see anything anywhere on earth proves Jesus was who He said He was and was God (could see the future from that day). You can't argue about this point. He said it and we have it. When He appears the whole world will see it...and fear for their lives/souls, if they don't know Him. Of course, no Christian will see Him in the sky bc we/they will be there with Him. His next 'coming' is the one to fear, tho.

You see, now you are trying to claim that "Jesus actually saw our day," and yet -- you have no way to know whether this is the case because Jesus has not returned in the glory you claim all will see. You just assume he will -- that because the prophecy is in the Bible it must be right and so it is right.

But I bring you back to the rest of that same prophecy about Jesus return "in glory," -- that some "yet standing" will also see, because it is happening very, very soon. This is a bit perplexing, because I keep looking around for those who were listening to Jesus who might still be hanging about waiting. Haven't found them, so I assume that he was unable to at least that part of the future.

 

[Sonny]

Can't figure out why you won't tell me where you find prophecy about Alexander in Ezekial and Jeremiah. I've looked, but they don't mention him at all. Of course, I tend not to read in everything I've ever wanted to symbolic writing, mostly because I assume that it isn't there. But at least be kind enough to point me to the texts, so that I an properly evaluate for myself.

Meantime, you don't deny what I say about when Daniel was written, merely deflect to other texts that you claim say the same thing.

As to the "hundreds of" "fulfilled prophecies," you might also consider reading a non-religious analysis of many of them -- The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies

I need to look it up. I'm doing some other things now in addition to posting here. I will save this page and post it later. I may have had the wrong book but the story is there. Tell me, if I am able to show you that clearly fulfilled and impossible to predict prophecy (and I can/will) will it change ur mind about Christianity?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I need to look it up. I'm doing some other things now in addition to posting here. I will save this page and post it later. I may have had the wrong book but the story is there. Tell me, if I am able to show you that clearly fulfilled and impossible to predict prophecy (and I can/will) will it change ur mind about Christianity?

I am a person who lives by the truth that I can see. I accept things I don't like if they are proven to me, because I can't permit myself to live with the cognitive dissonance that trying to maintain some belief in the face of contradictory evidence causes. I know when I'm fooling myself.

But the trick in your question is, of course, whether you will be able to show me a "clearly fulfilled and impossible to predict prophecy." You should study how easy it is to "retrofit" some present event into some ancient, vaguely and symbolically written "prophecy."

As a matter of fact, I shall provide you with an example, from one of the most famous "prophets" of all: Nostradamus.

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra grand Roy deffrayeur
Resusciter le grand Roy d'Angoumois.
Avant après Mars régner par bonheur.

The year 1999 seven months
From the sky will come the great King of Terror.
To resuscitate the great king of the Mongols.
Before and after Mars reigns by good luck. (X.72)

Of course nobody had the vaguest idea of what this might mean -- prior to July 1999. But that month, John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife Carolyn Bessette and her sister Lauren Bessette, were killed in a plane crash (July 18, 1999). So, now the "retroprophets" had something to work on, and managed to figure a way to shoe-horn the event into the "prophecy." And I'll give one just one example of how they managed to do that, from the internet:

"Could the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr.'s airplane in July of 1999 fulfill the line "from the sky will come "the great King of Terror"? Could the human fear of death and bodily injury be the intended definition of "the great King of Terror"? It might be possible!"

Well, start with "It might be possible." What does that show, how precise is it, what does it tell you about what IS.

For the record, there were other Nostradamus disciples who claimed that Nostradamus was referring to a solar eclipse that would occur on August 11, 1999. Others feared a NASA space probe would come crashing down on earth.

That's what happens when you can't bring yourself to say anything directly.

Let me give you another example, this time entirely of my own creation -- it will be based on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of England (and therefore of my country, Canada).

"When the hated pale ruler nears the last days, the last fair monarch surrenders the crown."

I am, of course, referring to Donald Trump, who will probably have only one term, and Elizabeth, who in her 90s right now might easily pass away. Will you call me a great prophet if she dies sometime in the either the second half of Trump's first term, or any time in his (unhoped-for) second, when she will be approaching 100?

 

[paarsurrey]

Especially for little children who die early and other people in other areas of the world who never got the chance to believe in me.

The truthful religion doesn't say that. The children are innocent and they won't go to hell unless they get matured and do sins purposely knowing that it is sin. Please
Regards

I have to add.
There is not a country or a civilized society in the world that doesn't have a system of reward for the good and punishment to the criminal/sinful.

Regards

 

[Muffled]

It seems to me that the concept of Hell, while extremely effective as a control mechanism, is more than that. It is a reason for the entire Christian religion itself. Without Hell, there is no reason to be saved and by extension, no reason for a savior.

I believe the reason for salvation is God's love for us.

I believe the reason for the Christian religion is the insufficience of the law to save anyone and the need for imminent salvation.

 

[Muffled]

Please read all of this and respond to it. You have missed my post here. It sums up the very core of my disbelief as well as my lack of conviction in the moral righteousness and goodness of God. I would kindly refer anyone here to this post as well. Especially for those types of Christians who think they still have every reason to think that me going to hell is justified and that the moral standards and acts of God are justified. That is the debate I wish to have here:

I believe you are saying that God must be unrighteous because of your failure. I believe if you do not wish to fail you will not but the truth is that you wish to rebel rather than accept and that is what you are being judged on.

i believe I see that as very unkind and anti-christ.

I believe I certainly do.

 

[Muffled]

When i walked away from Christianity 30yrs ago i did not walk away from God.
What i told people was very simple, no god would ever condemn an honest search for the truth.

I believe the truth is that you must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior to get into the Kingdom of God or you will be sent to Hell. Now that you have heard it I can condemn you for not doing it.

 

[allfoak]

I believe the truth is that you must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior to get into the Kingdom of God or you will be sent to Hell. Now that you have heard it I can condemn you for not doing it.

It is yourself that you condemn.
You have no power to do anything else.
Nor does your God have any power to do so.
Have a nice day.

 

[Akivah]

I believe the reason for salvation is God's love for us.

I believe the reason for the Christian religion is the insufficience of the law to save anyone and the need for imminent salvation.

What do we need to be saved from?

 

[1robin]

I was treating my undecided position and the position of me leaning towards Christianity being nonsense independently. I was first looking at my undecided position alone and that was due to an honest open mindset when looking at all the claimed evidence out there.

I am not questioning your sincerity. I am questioning the reasoning behind your conclusions. I have not seen any argument from you that justifies unbelief. You do not even seem interested in evidence and reason.

I then looked at my leaning towards Christianity being nonsense and that was due to an honest open mindset that disagrees with the morals of the Christian God. Therefore, my undecided position alone has nothing to do with my disagreement with God's moral nature. Rather, my leaning towards Christianity being nonsense is due to my disagreement with God's moral nature.

I am glad you finally admitted it. It is perfectly fine for you to claim you do not accept God because you do not like God. If you will simply admit that is what your doing then we could go on to examine whether your doing so is justifiable.

Also, as you read my posts here in this topic, I did say that everyone should go to heaven, but that there should at least be some punishment for wrongdoing. I did not say that everyone should automatically go to heaven if that is what you were assuming I was saying. I also never said that I did not know anything about the evidence. I instead said that I looked up all that evidence in the past and remained undecided, but forgot what I've learned and read back then since this was just a one-time thing.

Every single argument you make is exactly the same in essence. You dress it up differently but at it's core your argument is that unless God acts and does exactly what you want you will withhold believe. If you can simply admit this we can stop pretending your position is based on evidence and reason and instead tackle the metaphysical speculation your engaged in.

It was not a situation where I wish to dedicate my life and learn a certain subject such as neuroscience in which it would not just be a one-time thing; it would instead be a matter of me pursuing an education and training in neuroscience and actually remembering that information I've learned.

God gave you freewill and you may use it as you see fit. You are perfectly free to withhold belief and to refuse to dedicate your self to God if you so desire. However, if you reject God you lose permanently everything he has or could have given you. He will take back the life he gave you, he will separate you from his love, his peace, and his contentment for eternity.

BTW God does not require you to become a monk or be able to recite all the scriptures. He has done all the work for you, himself. He only asks that you accept the sacrifices he made on your behalf.

Lastly, I do not care what more claimed evidence you present to me here. Based on the fact that I have read and looked into all I possibly could in the past and have still remain undecided, then chances are highly likely that whatever more claimed evidence you present to me now would still have me undecided.

Now we have finally arrived at the truth, that I recognized in your opening post. You do not care about evidence, reason, or reality it's self. You merely care about what you prefer. I can only show you what is true, I can't make you accept it, or even get you to care what is true. I no longer have time for these vacuous arguments based on pure emotion. I am afraid we are done here.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I am not questioning your sincerity. I am questioning the reasoning behind your conclusions. I have not seen any argument from you that justifies unbelief. You do not even seem interested in evidence and reason.

I am glad you finally admitted it. It is perfectly fine for you to claim you do not accept God because you do not like God. If you will simply admit that is what your doing then we could go on to examine whether your doing so is justifiable.

Every single argument you make is exactly the same in essence. You dress it up differently but at it's core your argument is that unless God acts and does exactly what you want you will withhold believe. If you can simply admit this we can stop pretending your position is based on evidence and reason and instead tackle the metaphysical speculation your engaged in.

God gave you freewill and you may use it as you see fit. You are perfectly free to withhold belief and to refuse to dedicate your self to God if you so desire. However, if you reject God you lose permanently everything he has or could have given you. He will take back the life he gave you, he will separate you from his love, his peace, and his contentment for eternity.

BTW God does not require you to become a monk or be able to recite all the scriptures. He has done all the work for you, himself. He only asks that you accept the sacrifices he made on your behalf.

Now we have finally arrived at the truth, that I recognized in your opening post. You do not care about evidence, reason, or reality it's self. You merely care about what you prefer. I can only show you what is true, I can't make you accept it, or even get you to care what is true. I no longer have time for these vacuous arguments based on pure emotion. I am afraid we are done here.

That's fine if you don't wish to debate with me anymore. I completely understand. If you ever change your mind, then you are free to do so with me. But it would not be in regards to the claimed evidence out there regarding God's existence and the afterlife. It would instead be in regards to whether God's moral nature really is all loving, all just, and righteous or not.

You are right that I don't prefer to look anymore into the claimed evidence and see what is true since it would just take up much of my life dedicating myself and researching on this topic. This is because the thing I wish to live for is to learn how to compose. So that is the hobby I wish to live for. I see no reason to be disappointed in that because everyone has their own hobby/career they wish to pursue.

I think it would be silly for anyone to be disappointed and frown upon me since it would be no different than a situation where a dentist or a teacher frowns upon me since I don't wish to dedicate my life into their careers. Lastly, I think my disagreement with God's moral nature is actually based on rational reasoning and clear evidence all around me.

It is based on all the knowledge I have learned throughout my life. We as human beings naturally learn what is right and what is wrong throughout our lives. It is knowledge that is obtained naturally throughout our lives no different than how we learn a language naturally throughout our lives. Once we have learned language, we then have authority to speak it.

Morality is no different. Since I have learned what is right and what is wrong throughout my life, then that gives me authority on the topic. That gives me authority on the topic of God's moral standards and for such a rejection and disagreement of his moral nature to be a valid and sound position. To say that my disagreement with God's moral nature is arrogant nonsense would be no different than telling me:

"You have no authority on the English language. You are an arrogant fool to think that you know what words mean and how to apply them. You have no rational reasoning or evidence whatsoever for thinking that you have any authority on the English language."

The type of evidence I am talking about here is rock solid. It is no different than a situation where you can clearly see a tree in your yard. You seeing that tree being there is clear evidence of that tree being there. Such clear evidence also applies to morality. You can clearly see what is right and what is wrong. You know that harming an innocent living thing or your brother/sister is wrong.

But such clear evidence does not apply to the existence of God and the afterlife and neither does it apply to God's moral nature somehow being righteous, all loving, and all just. This type of claimed evidence regarding God's existence is just a simple matter of debate. You see skeptics and believers debating this claimed evidence all the time. But you would never see such a debate regarding the clear evidence that indicates that a tree is in your yard.

I realize that believers and skeptics do debate God's moral nature. But such a debate should not exist in the first place since it is no different than debating whether a tree is in your yard when that tree is clearly there in the yard. Although, in this case, it might take a while for the Christian believers to see that tree.

I think I find this interesting. You are willing to debate the claimed evidence out there regarding the existence of God because you are convinced he exists and you are trying to help me see that he exists. But I am not willing to debate that topic since I have no interest in that topic and I am not convinced he exists. However, I am willing to debate with you the issue of God's moral character since I am convinced that his moral character is cruel, unjust, and unloving. I am trying to debate that topic with you to try and make you see that. But you are unwilling to debate that topic since you have no interest and you are not convinced that his moral nature is as I described it to be.

 

[1robin]

That's fine if you don't wish to debate with me anymore. I completely understand. If you ever change your mind, then you are free to do so with me. But it would not be in regards to the claimed evidence out there regarding God's existence and the afterlife. It would instead be in regards to whether God's moral nature really is all loving, all just, and righteous or not.

You are right that I don't prefer to look anymore into the claimed evidence and see what is true since it would just take up much of my life dedicating myself and researching on this topic. This is because the thing I wish to live for is to learn how to compose. So that is the hobby I wish to live for. I see no reason to be disappointed in that because everyone has their own hobby/career they wish to pursue.

I think it would be silly for anyone to be disappointed and frown upon me since it would be no different than a situation where a dentist or a teacher frowns upon me since I don't wish to dedicate my life into their careers. Lastly, I think my disagreement with God's moral nature is actually based on rational reasoning and clear evidence all around me.

It is based on all the knowledge I have learned throughout my life. We as human beings naturally learn what is right and what is wrong throughout our lives. It is knowledge that is obtained naturally throughout our lives no different than how we learn a language naturally throughout our lives. Once we have learned language, we then have authority to speak it.

Morality is no different. Since I have learned what is right and what is wrong throughout my life, then that gives me authority on the topic. That gives me authority on the topic of God's moral standards and for such a rejection and disagreement of his moral nature to be a valid and sound position. To say that my disagreement with God's moral nature is arrogant nonsense would be no different than telling me:

"You have no authority on the English language. You are an arrogant fool to think that you know what words mean and how to apply them. You have no rational reasoning or evidence whatsoever for thinking that you have any authority on the English language."

The type of evidence I am talking about here is rock solid. It is no different than a situation where you can clearly see a tree in your yard. You seeing that tree being there is clear evidence of that tree being there. Such clear evidence also applies to morality. You can clearly see what is right and what is wrong. You know that harming an innocent living thing or your brother/sister is wrong.

But such clear evidence does not apply to the existence of God and the afterlife and neither does it apply to God's moral nature somehow being righteous, all loving, and all just. This type of claimed evidence regarding God's existence is just a simple matter of debate. You see skeptics and believers debating this claimed evidence all the time. But you would never see such a debate regarding the clear evidence that indicates that a tree is in your yard.

I realize that believers and skeptics do debate God's moral nature. But such a debate should not exist in the first place since it is no different than debating whether a tree is in your yard when that tree is clearly there in the yard. Although, in this case, it might take a while for the Christian believers to see that tree.

I think I find this interesting. You are willing to debate the claimed evidence out there regarding the existence of God because you are convinced he exists and you are trying to help me see that he exists. But I am not willing to debate that topic since I have no interest in that topic and I am not convinced he exists. However, I am willing to debate with you the issue of God's moral character since I am convinced that his moral character is cruel, unjust, and unloving. I am trying to debate that topic with you to try and make you see that. But you are unwilling to debate that topic since you have no interest and you are not convinced that his moral nature is as I described it to be.

Ok, your a nice enough person that I will give you another chance or two to mount a meaningful argument.

Never mind, I was scouring your post for even a hint of this evidence you keep telling me you have, when I saw you called me a fool. You also made some confusing comment about my ability with the English language, which isn't even coherent. So because you all already making personal attacks, keep talking about evidence you apparently will never actually post, and because much of what you say isn't coherent I withdraw my offer and am definitely done with you here.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Ok, your a nice enough person that I will give you another chance or two to mount a meaningful argument.

Never mind, I was scouring your post for even a hint of this evidence you keep telling me you have, when I saw you called me a fool. You also made some confusing comment about my ability with the English language, which isn't even coherent. So because you all already making personal attacks, keep talking about evidence you apparently will never actually post, and because much of what you say isn't coherent I withdraw my offer and am definitely done with you here.

That quote was not directed at you. That quote was an analogue. So I never called you a fool or commented about your English language. I think what you've done here is you've taken that quote out of context and assumed it was directed at you when it wasn't.

 

[1robin]

That quote was not directed at you. That quote was an analogue. So I never called you a fool or commented about your English language. I think what you've done here is you've taken that quote out of context and assumed it was directed at you when it wasn't.

I always give people several more opportunities than they may deserve. Your new to me and so I will give you one last chance, so make it count.

I cannot find a single piece of either good or even bad evidence you have used to justify your non-belief in the God of the bible. So, take your time and post the single best piece of evidence you can cough forth which can justify your non-belief. Good luck.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I always give people several more opportunities than they may deserve. Your new to me and so I will give you one last chance, so make it count.

I cannot find a single piece of either good or even bad evidence you have used to justify your non-belief in the God of the bible. So, take your time and post the single best piece of evidence you can cough forth which can justify your non-belief. Good luck.

I did post evidence there. But it was not in regards to whether God exists or not. It was instead in regards to my position on how the moral nature of God is not all just, all loving, and righteous. I have been making these types of arguments against God's moral nature, but have not posted actual evidence to support that. But in that post, there is actual evidence to support that. I will repeat that evidence here again:

We have clear evidence that we have authority on the application of the English language in our daily lives. We have learned words and talk as we get older and, over time, we have clear knowledge of the English language. We are able to apply it correctly and there is no mistaking this. Therefore, morality is no different. We also learn what is right and wrong over time and, just like learning how to speak English, we also are able to apply the concept of morality correctly in our daily lives.

We clearly know that it is wrong to harm our brother/sister or an innocent living thing. We also know how the moral standard of the Christian God is horrible. I have clearly learned what is right and wrong and, therefore, I know that the moral standard of the Christian God is wrong. My application of my moral judgments to the Christian God's morals is undeniably correct just as how my application of my English language to my daily life is undeniably correct. I have authority of what is right and what is wrong just as how I have authority of my English language.

 

[paarsurrey]

Satanism.

It is not a positive ideology
Regards

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First, Catholics have some beliefs that are not from Christianity but they do use the Bible as their only source of Scripture. I'm not sure how the Catholics square them with the Bible. But that is cultic to do.
Fulfilled prophecies -
a 200 million-man Army. That was said when only about 50 million were on earth. Today, it'd be like me saying someday an Army of 28 Billion would exist. Pretty far fetched, huh? It was then too.
Food will become scarce (quart of wheat =day's wage). We see prices rising fast but product shrinking. Bought any cookies lately? More $ but fewer cookies. All foods are that way- pay more, get less.
Earth will be knocked off Axis by massive Meteor (Asteroid, Comet, etc). 2004 showed us it can occur.
Israel became a nation again (1948) after more than 1,900 years . No other nation, Superpower or not, has ever done that.
A round earth. Before anyone considered it, to my knowledge, at least, the Bible taught it. 500 years ago everybody thot/taught the earth was flat.
The Mark of the Beast is coming. Credit cards are only a pre-runner to implanted chips/devices where the Bible's words come true- Mark in hand or forehead. Where else is best for a barcode scanner to scan?
TVs, satellites and electricity prophesied. Keep in mind they didn't call them what we do but it is clear, now, what Jesus meant.
Man and Dinos lived at same time. Evidence is/has surfaced implying just that.
So you see, the Bible proves itself true. And, if it is then no other can be.

These only work if you take current knowledge and attempt to mesh it with old prophecies. None of them were phropetic in any way. what army has reached 200 million? The largest ever is China which sits just over two million. That is barely 1% of the phrophecy. The rest are all based on extremely vague verses with even more vauge and convoluted currenet facts. Israel is a self fulfilling prophecy rather than a legitimate one.

This isn't convincing in the least.

 

[natasha levchenko]

Was this meant to be your question to me? You know that I am LDS right?

If so.....in order to discuss this, it is important to first determine God's purpose for mankind and the role that the Plan of Salvation plays in gettng us where we needed to go.

God's purpose----his work and his glory----is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind.


Because of Jesus Christ---All mankind will receive the unconditional gift of Immortality through the resurrection. However, the conditional gift of Eternal Life (returning to the highest kingdom of heaven) is reserved only for the faithful.

"The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is designed to bring about both man’s immortality and eternal life. It includes the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement, along with all God-given laws, ordinances, and doctrines. This plan makes it possible for all people to be exalted (gaining Eternal Life) and live forever with God (2 Ne. 2, 9). The scriptures also refer to this plan as the plan of salvation, the plan of redemption, the plan of happiness, and the plan of mercy." Bible Dictionary, The Plan of Redemption.

After the Resurrection (where Immortality is gained) all mankind will go before our Maker to be judged of our faith + works (at the Final Judgment) to be assigned our==rewards of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven has many levels of faithfulness (also referred to as "many mansions"). The highest glory that can be attained in Heaven is referred to as the Celestial Kingdom [Eternal Life], then the lesser Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. Each of these three glories are divided into three levels. For those who do not receive a "mansion in my father's kingdom" they will be CAST-OUT (damned) into outer-darkness in Hell. A Rewards system neccissitates the need for a non-reward. Where there are rewards for obeying God and His Laws......there must also be an appropriate place for those to go, who refused to obey. If there is no sin.....then there will not be a reward nor a punishment for complying or not complying.

Sorry,what is LDS?