posted
I hate to break it to you, but C.S. Lewis was a very devout Christian, so much so that he is considered one of the greatest modern theologians.
When we decided to get married in an Episcopal church, my priest had us read his book Mere Christianity , which I believe was a collection of transcripts from his weekly radio show on BBC.
posted
Ok, Trevor, I will take your word for it. I don't know you well enough to know your style yet, and that comment did sound, uh, unfriendly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it is how he described himself for most of his life, and it was one of the reasons he and Tolkien had so many differences as friends.
One of his major critiques of Tolkien's works, which stared out as reading materials for the Inklings, was that is seemed too secular.
quote: 1944
On seven consecutive Tuesdays, from February 22 to April 4 at 10:15 to 10:30 p.m., Lewis gave the pre-recorded talks known as "Beyond Personality." Taken together, all of Lewis' BBC radio broadcast talks were eventually published under the title Mere Christianity. From November 10, 1944 to April 14, 1945, The Great Divorce was published in weekly installments in The Guardian. (The Guardian was a religious newspaper that ceased publication in 1951; it had no connection with the Manchester Guardian.)
Here is a good linky to a chronology for his life.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it wasn't *just* that, Trevor. Your definition of a fanatic (and a rather unflattering one at that) was similar enough to my definition of a firm believer to sound like an accusation. But I understand that that is how you look at things.
For me a fanatic is someone who is zealous *and* misguided. But given your feelings on religion, perhaps you see all believers as misguided, neh? Where I see a firm believer, you see a fanatic. Ok, I can live with that.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Regardless of the particulars of the belief system, if you are unwilling to accept the possibility you might be wrong and will not consider debate or discussion to prove or disprove the truth of that belief, then I consider you a fanatic.
While I think any unwavering, unquestioning obedience to anything is wrong and generally a bad idea, I fully accept your right to believe as you choose.
Which is still sounding amazingly hostile as I re-read it, but I'm not sure how else to better phrase it.
-Trevor
Edit: Snicker: One man's trash is another man's trasure. One man's heretic is another man's true believer. I suppose it all depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on. "Misguided" is again another matter of perspective.
posted
Kwea, I have heard that Lewis was an atheist/agnostic (not because they are the same, but because he was of different beliefs at different times) from early college years until his thirties. The chronology bears this out.
quote:1911
Lewis was enrolled as a student at Cherbourg House (which he referred to as "Chartres"), a prep school close by Malvern College where Warnie was enrolled as a student. Jack remained there until June 1913. It was during this time that he abandoned his childhood Christian faith.
1929
Lewis became a theist: "In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed...."
He's still one of my favorites.
The thread's kind of gotten off track from where it started. Blackwolve, did this answer your question?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a relatively in depth discussion of LDS doctrine, and the scriptural and prophetic support we believe we have for them, check out this book available to read free online: Gospel Principles - it's the Sunday School manual for church investigators, and new converts. Lots of info in there, explained in a very clear, straightforward fashion.
-
As for C.S. Lewis, The whole first section of Mere Christianity is how Lewis used logic to convince himself out of Athiesm. It's quite a fascinating read!
posted
This is a quote from many, many posts back, but I've been away for a few hours, and this is a fast-moving thread
quote:Geoff, the idea that millions of LDS men and boys, aged 16 and up, have this conduit that is somehow so much more accurate than scholars with years of prayer, intelligence, and diligent study, scares me.
Theca, Mormons don't believe that just anybody with the priesthood is an authority on defining doctrine. Only a few people at a time ever have that authority, or there would be utter chaos. Twelve-, fourteen-, and sixteen-year-old priesthood holders have very limited responsibilities, and even most adults with the priesthood are limited to acting within their own households or specific callings within the Church. Only the Prophet himself, with the aid of his counselors and the apostles, has the authority to define new doctrine, and these are usually older men with a lifetime of study and service behind them. It's a LITTLE less scary that way, isn't it?
Oh, hey, another old quote:
quote:Geoff, from what you've said here, it would appear that Mormon's would acknowledge the priesthood in others (non-LDS) just so long as they know that God granted it to them.
Bob, actually, yes, we do think there have been many instances throughout history when people have possessed the priesthood and/or other gifts from God. But it doesn't make a LOT of sense for God to set up multiple competing churches in the same place at the same time. If there is any church at all that He will give His official stamp to, there will likely be only one at a time — or at most, multiple churches with no contact between them.
So we believe it's us right now. Not meant as a slam on anyone else ... and, I mean, honestly, what else are we going to believe? That we're wrong and everyone else is right? Hard to build a church on that. A political party, maybe ...
quote:Given that many clergy (and lay people for that matter) feel called by God to preach, it seems like the LDS church would acknowledge those people as priests.
We have absolutely nothing against the idea that people from other faiths can be inspired, or called by God to preach. On the contrary, we believe that ANYONE can have those experiences. What I've been discussing is solely an issue of final authority on doctrinal matters, not of the validity of someone else's spiritual experience. We believe that God created our church specifically because He wanted to provide a place where people could be taught about Him with authority, with less of the chaos of speculation.
Of course, we still get our share of that chaos, but when it gets out of control, we have someone whose calling it is to set us straight. Naturally, there are other churches who believe that authority rests with other people, but ... well, that's why those people belong to other churches It's not a weakness in our doctrine that we believe we're right.
quote:Hence, another huge point of contention. Your clergy say everyone elses clergy is PROBABLY false, or rather "almost certainly" falsely ordained.
It really depends on what your connotations are. If you're suggesting that we believe they are "false" in the sense of being servants of Satan, deceivers, bad people, idiots, etc, then NO, we emphatically do NOT believe anything like that about the clergy of other faiths.
Do we believe that we have a special mandate from God not shared by other churches? Yes. We think we're special. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Oh, look, a quote from Jutsa:
quote:Why do you call non-Mormons "Evangelicals" when Mormons evangelize far more than non-Mormon groups, with the exception of maybe Jehovah's Witnesses? If anything Mormons would count more as "Evangelicals," unless that is a Mormon name for non-Mormons.
I didn't make up that descriptor. It's the name used by many of the current generation of popular American Christian churches to describe themselves. "Born-again Christians" is another common name. By using these terms, I'm not trying to say that Mormons don't evangelize, or that we are not "born again" — much to the contrary. I'm simply using the title that this particular breed of Christians prefers to use for themselves.
Actually, many of them prefer to simply be called "Christians" with the express purpose of denying that title to other historically-Christian faiths, including Cathoics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox, etc. I don't like that kind of semantic crap, so I use a more useful, more specific descriptor.
Besides, I have to do something to distinguish the current generation of "non-denominational" protestant Christians from earlier generations, as this is a relatively new movement with a different set of beliefs from previous Christian movements (Methodism, Calvinism, Puritanism, etc, etc).
[ July 18, 2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor, that didn't sound hostile to me at all, BTW.
I think that I always entertain the idea that I might be wrong. After all, I have not seen an angel. But what if I had? Would I be fanatical if I had empirical truth and still could not be reasoned out of my religion?
I think that I am open to discussion, unless the person I am talking with holds my beliefs in contempt. They have to be open-minded too, or else it isn't a discussion.
I will address both Tom and Trevor on the subject of being "misguided". I think it is entirely possible for someone to have faith in something that is true and yet be fanatical about it, and therefore misguided. In my mind, the term fanatical implies a misunderstanding even of the true principles the person might believe in, and therefore incorrect response on their part to those beliefs.
Example: A believer understands that at times God has actually commanded a person to kill. (We will assume that this is true for the sake of the point.) The believer is also fanatical and extrapolates upon this true belief to justify their decision to kill someone, but not at God's command. Take the crusades for example, or the witch trials. I don't think those people were carrying out God's will. I think they were taking personal extrapolations on true principles. They were misguided because of the way they behaved in response to truth.
Yes, I think fanatics are always misguided.
A dictionary definition of fanatic:
quote: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion
Note the term "excessive". That is where the "misguided" idea comes from.
posted
"The whole first section of Mere Christianity is how Lewis used logic to convince himself out of Athiesm."
Oh, how I wish he had used logic. That would have been a genuinely cool book, if he had.
-----
"The believer is also fanatical and extrapolates upon this true belief to justify their decision to kill someone, but not at God's command."
Here's a question: how does someone distinguish their belief that God has asked them to kill someone from the FACT that God has asked them to kill someone? For example, beverly, let's say an angel appeared to you and told you, with great regret and sorrow, that Papa Moose had to die for reasons that made excellent sense. What tools would you use to determine empirically that you were being "zealous" and not "fanatic?"
posted
Zeal is only enthusiasm or passion. It can be directed to good or evil, the definition does not specify one or the other. "Over-zealous" implies misdirection in the "over" part.
I must admit puzzlement over the term "true believer" having any sort of negative connotation. That does seem to imply a strong cynicism towards faith.
posted
My personal definition of a "fanatic" is a person who believes so strongly in a single thing that it dominates all other considerations, including basic morality. Such a person is dangerous because we depend on maintaining a basic moral common ground to keep our civilization intact.
It is also common for a fanatic to identify with a group of likeminded people who are considered superior, more valuable, or more human than outsiders. This, too, is dangerous, as it encourages severe animosity toward the outside world, and can lead to thoughtless violence.
As a religious person, I feel it is part of my responsibility to work against fanaticism within my own faith. Religion is a very good thing insofar as it helps individuals to better themselves and enrich their normal lives. When it starts to replace or destroy their normal lives, I begin to get suspicious.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"True Believer" - strongly believes in his or her faith.
Whether that faith requires you to plant trees and flowers or fly planes into bildings, the are both "true believers."
Applying "misguided" is your applying your opinion of their faith or their devotion to their faith. For all I really know, God might be a bloodthirsty bastard who revels in death, destruction and chaos. He did require a blood sacrifice, after all.
Apply any term you like to someone who unswervingly devotes themselves fully and completely to a cause or belief and I'll think it a bad term.
Patriot or terrorist? Yet another "in the eye of the beholder" label.
-Trevor
P.S. Ya know, each time I read this, it sounds angrier and angrier. And I'm not angry - resigned, perhaps.
Edit: Basic morality - by what definition? How do we define what constitutes "basic morality?"
quote: Here's a question: how does someone distinguish their belief that God has asked them to kill someone from the FACT that God has asked them to kill someone? For example, beverly, let's say an angel appeared to you and told you, with great regret and sorrow, that Papa Moose had to die for reasons that made excellent sense. What tools would you use to determine empirically that you were being "zealous" and not "fanatic?"
Were you present the last time we had this discussion? I would have to actually go through the experience to know the answer to that question. After all, that would be a very grave matter indeed!
But on an interesting side note, have you heard Joseph Smith's guidelines for determining if a heavenly messenger is from God or not?
Edit: And then there is the issue of: Even if I was sure this was God's will and it was the right thing to do, would I be able to bring myself to do it?
posted
Honestly, Trevor, you do not sound angry. Not to me. You seem to be calmly, clearly, explaining how you see this issue.
quote: He did require a blood sacrifice, after all.
Out of curiosity, are you referring to the sacrifice of animals, or humans?
It makes sense that one person would look at the term "true believer" as a positive thing and another person as a negative thing. It reflects one's own perspective. I was only commenting that your perspective on the word speaks volumes to me of your perspective on religion, God, and those who put faith in such things.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To both Tom and Trevor, my faith is not always "rock solid", but it has never wavered to the point that I am more likely to believe that these things are "not" true, just to the point of curiosity, pondering and the like. My faith is strenghtened repeatedly by the whole "ringing true" thing (among other things).
I understand that different things seem to "ring true" to different people. But then, we all have to use that as our guide for what to believe in, don't we? To Tom and Trevor, my beliefs don't "ring true" and therefore they are both pretty convinced that I (and others) are wrong. That's fine with me, as long as you are truly honest with your own hearts and minds. (Be honest, don't we always have the suspicion that those who don't believe as we do are not being fully honest with themselves?)
I am content to wait till the afterlife for a more solid reassurance of these things. If there is none, then the point is rather moot. If there is, well, then all us believers and the agnostics and atheists can start having some very interesting conversations. Till then, we all just continue our search for understanding and do what we feel is right.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Animals, humans - I'm not sure I see a difference.
But that's another rant I don't really want to go down.
-Trevor
Edit: Oh, I fully admit I could be wrong. And if I wake up with St. Peter looking at me laughing, I hope I have the dignity to concede the point and make some quip before being condemned to Hell.
But before I take the express bus downstairs, I would like some questions answered.
I just didn't slaughter the cow on a murky religious point, nor did I see the need to nail someone to a tree - not that I would have felt the need to have a plate of Christ.
And for some reason I keep seeing the scene from "Hot Shots" and I can't stop giggling. It may be from the lack of food at the moment.
posted
But they ate the animals they sacrificed, didn't they?
Mmmmm, meat.
I have to say I draw a pretty strong distinction between eating a chicken and eating a human, therefore animal sacrifice and human sacrifice.
As to the sacrifice of Christ and the purpose of it, that is a whole 'nother matter entirely. First of all, are you willing to believe in a Divine Messiah that willingly sacrificed Himself? Or do you think it was just a guy who was helpless as any mortal under those circumstances? Makes a huge difference.
If you think he was just a guy (as I suspect you do) then it wasn't a sacrifice at all, just another execution. No human sacrifice involved at all, then. Unless you want to include Abraham and Isaac, which didn't involve any actual human sacrifice either.
quote: And if I wake up with St. Peter looking at me laughing, I hope I have the dignity to concede the point and make some quip before being condemned to Hell.
But before I take the express bus downstairs, I would like some questions answered.
You know, I've never particularly cared for the classical Christian view of hell, the one at the butt of all the jokes. I rather like C.S. Lewis' allegory of the afterlife in "The Great Divorce". If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they ate the sacrificed animals - it's all good. Although I have to wonder, why sacrifice animals at all? Although it may just be on of those "It's a God thing, you wouldn't understand."
As for the human sacrifice, I refer to the litany "He sacrificed his only son."
At which point I ask - to whom he was sacrificed? Why was a sacrifice even necessary?
-Trevor
Edit: Generally speaking, Hell - no matter how you view it, is reserved for the unbelievers. So if the traditional view is true, I'm going to find out one way or the other.
quote: why sacrifice animals at all? Although it may just be on of those "It's a God thing, you wouldn't understand."
A bit of a 'remedial gospel', as a way to knock into the Pre-Christians the concept of sacrifice and blood atonement, so that when the Real Thing happened, they'd recognise it.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and ccall upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.
Moses 6:59-60
quote:59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;
60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;
posted
Trevor, on the subject of Hell, you might be interested to know that those of my faith have a rather different take on it, one you may not be aware of. C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce comes pretty close in a lot of ways.
In the LDS view, hell is far more for those who act against their knowledge of God and goodness than it is for those who never believed in God to begin with. In LDS theology, the word "hell" can be used to mean different things.
I am not sure how the Jews feel about animal sacrifice, but it is a generally accepted idea among Christians (I think) and LDS especially that it was to prepare the people to understand what Christ was going to do.
So, yes, I believe that Christ was a sacrifice. A willing one, and not technically a human sacrifice since I believe Christ was only half-mortal. Bears little similarity to your average human sacrifice.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And again, why was Jesus sacrificed? To what point?
And the whole "cleansed of blood" description seems a tad...violent for a God who invokes, "thou shalt not kill." Or perhaps murder.
Here's a quote from that book I linked to earlier - it goes more in depth, but this may help:
quote:Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Council of the Twelve gave the following illustration to show how Christ’s atonement makes it possible to be saved from sin if we do our part.
“Let me tell you a story—a parable.
“There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.
“He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.
“So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.
“The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.
“But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.
“Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.
“ ‘I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,’ he confessed.
“ ‘Then,’ said the creditor, ‘we will exercise the contract, take your possessions and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.’
“ ‘Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?’ the debtor begged. ‘Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?’
“The creditor replied, ‘Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?’
“ ‘I believed in justice when I signed the contract,’ the debtor said. ‘It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.’
“ ‘It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,’ the creditor replied. ‘That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.’
“There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.
“ ‘If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,’ the debtor pleaded.
“ ‘If I do, there will be no justice,’ was the reply.
“Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?
“There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.
“The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.
“ ‘I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.’
“As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, ‘You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.’
“And so the creditor agreed.
“The mediator turned then to the debtor. ‘If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?’
“ ‘Oh yes, yes,’ cried the debtor. ‘You saved me from prison and show mercy to me.’
“ ‘Then,’ said the benefactor, ‘you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.’
“And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken.
“The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was satisfied” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, pp. 79–80; or Ensign, May 1977, pp. 54–55).
Our sins are our spiritual debts. Without Jesus Christ, who is our Savior and Mediator, we would all pay for our sins by suffering spiritual death. But because of him, if we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments, we may return to live with our Heavenly Father.
It is wonderful that Christ has provided us a way to be healed from our sins. He said:
“Behold, I have come unto the world … to save the world from sin.
“Therefore, whoso repenteth and cometh unto me as a little child, him will I receive, for of such is the kingdom of God. Behold, for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again; therefore repent, and come unto me ye ends of the earth, and be saved” (3 Nephi 9:21–22).
There's a verse that says "We are saved by grace after all we can do" - a verse which many use to attack the church's philosophy saying that 'That's not real grace. How is it grace if you have to earn it?'
That comes from a misunderstanding. It's like... if you're in a 1 million mile race, and you are only physically able to run 100 miles. You try your hardest to get as far as you can - you really try - but you can't possibly attain that goal. The grace part takes you the rest of the way, the 999,900 miles you couldn't go on your own.
However, making the effort - no matter how little you can go - is STILL important. We believe God gave commandments, not suggestions - and those include helping the needy, and proclaiming the Gospel to those who haven't heard it, or don't understand it.
We also figure if Christ made such a major sacrifice, it's the least we can do to agree to his terms to accept the payment for a debt there was no way we could pay on our own.
Plus, we believe he has our best interest at heart, and that it will be More than Worth It if we endure to the end.
posted
Mmmm, some very deep and involved questions with deep and involved answers. This thread has already been so derailed that even blacwolve has not returned to say if she has had her questions answered to her satisfaction. (I apologize if you are actually a guy, blacwolve.)
But, since when has derailing threads stopped a jatraquero?
Also, keep in mind, the answers of an LDS might differ from those of another Christian. Of course, even among LDS the answers might differ slightly.
But me thinks this deserves a thread of its own, it is a pretty involved topic by its own right, what say ye? Shall we start a new thread on it?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright - I'm not sure I get it, but let's try this tack.
Why was Jesus required to be nailed to the cross? To forgo our sins? Is God not such an all-powerful being he couldn't "forgive" the sins? Or the debt, as the parallel goes?
As God is the creditor, in this case, the maker of all things and the source of all laws, why then is he bound by those laws? And why are we to be thankful for His willingness to sacrifice his Son for a system that he himself put in place?
-Trevor
Edit: And at the risk of taking the parallel to literally - the debtor had the option of not accepting the loan. Were we given the opportunity to reject or at the very least not accept this "loan?" Or God's own rules and laws concerning sin, which, I assume is what Jesus is abolishing with his sacrifice?
quote: Evangelical = Authority of God through Scripture and Creeds Mormon = Authority of God through Prophets and the Priesthood
It's weird that no one mentioned that many Evangelical Christians also find authority of God through their own experiences with him. It's not like we just blindly read the Bible and do what it says, although that comes into play. We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us, so when we find a point of Scripture that confuses us, we can pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit to help us discern the truth.
Maybe someone did mention it, or maybe it wasn't relevant. But, like it isn't true that Mormons simply listen the the guy in charge and go, "Uh-huh, uh-huh", it also isn't true that I use the "old traditions" and don't think at all.
Just wanted to say that.
------
For me, God didn't HAVE to allow Jesus to be sacrificed for us to be saved. It was symbolic. Salvation comes when we accept the fact that Jesus is Lord and died for us. Salvation didn't come simply because Jesus was killed. It only gave us an opportunity to be saved.
God wouldn't just forgive everybody and leave it at that. He doesn't want little robots. He wants children that CHOOSE to follow him and love him. It makes perfect sense to me. If you wanted a child, you wouldn't buy a computer.
That might not square with Mormon theology, I don't know.
posted
The cross was just the method used by the Romans at the time. It's what was prophesied would happen because, well, that's what WOULD happen at that point in time.
LDS believe the most important part of the Atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane, where all the sins of the world were taken upon by Christ - a person who has never sinned. This wasn't done involunatrily - it was the reason he was born. He accepted it. He knew it would, frankly, really kinda suck. HE even asked if there was any other way - but there wasn't, so he accepted it. He knew it had to be done. This turmoil was so rough that he bled from every pore. This is when the major portion of the Atonement occured - the Spiritual portion.
It was while he was carrying the weight of these sins that he was brutally beaten and tortured (as can be seen in Passion of the Christ - which may even have been 'light' compared to what really happened) - for what couldn't be seen or ucomprehended spiritually was now played out physically, in a way that we CAN comprehend and understand.
These means of torture were also prophesied beforehand because nobody could just come up and say they were the prophesied one by completing a few easy prophesied events. It was SPECIFIC.
Right before he died, he cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" - a double message. He was now completely separated from his Father, because nothing with Sin can come before the Father.
Also...that line is the first verse of a Psalm that prophesies the crucifixion, and many other things he fulfilled. It was a bit of a wink, wink to get people to recognise what exactly had just happened.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: And at the risk of taking the parallel to literally - the debtor had the option of not accepting the loan. Were we given the opportunity to reject or at the very least not accept this "loan?"sacrifice?
Yup.
Actually, according to LDS theology, the fact that we're here on earth means that we already DID accept the loan. We agreed to the Plan as spirits before we were born into mortality in order to progress.
posted
And I'm referring to the initial loan - we knew we'd be getting into debt the moment we were born, and we knew all about the Savior's Atonement plan. We agreed to go into debt, knowing accepting the Atonement was the only way to Return to the presence of our Father in Heaven. We also knew that we wouldn't remember our premortal life, but we did know that the Holy Spirit would be given to guide us on the Right Path.
posted
I wasn't at the computer, so I didn't see this until now, sorry.
Yes, my questions have been answered and I love the way this is turning out, I think it's really interesting.
However, to derail the derailment, does anyone want to tell me about LDS marriage ceremonies? What vows are taken, who administers the ceremony, etc.?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see, Taalcon. I guess the analogy just got too deep for me. I thought Trevor was talking about the "loan" of Christ's sacrifice, or accepting the fact that he paid for our sins.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so I have no memory or recollection of this debt/agreement, yet someone is knocking on my door saying, "oh, guess what - you owe me a hell of a lot?"
And God wasn't kind enough to implant this knowledge from "birth" so I wouldn't get caught with my shorts down over a debt that I couldn't possibly know I signed?
Part the Seconde Why can't someone with sin come before God? If that was his rule and we are bound by it, why create someone to "absorb" that sin and die - wouldn't it be less brutal to simply change the rule?
And why am I expected to be grateful for being offered this "savior" that saves me from a system being introduced by the God in question?
God creates the system, realizes nobody can meet him, so he creates this half-mortal being with the intention of saving us from the system He created in the first place?
-Trevor
Edit: Sorry PSI, was distracted -> so he gives us free will and the demand, "Love me or go to Hell."
Ya know, that really sounds like a dictator to me - in the bad sense of the word.
posted
Christ's sacrifice made more sense to the people int he past, and had more meaning. They sacrificed animals to pay for their sins, so Christ's death was something they could relate to.
Trevor- So it would be better to be a love-love robot?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
