- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I posed this question to my seminary students several years ago and thought I’d throw it out here just for kicks. I don’t want to muddy the waters with my personal interpretations so I’ll just present my “thought experiment” and see where you all take it. Here it is: Two twins are born, both live to the age of 80 and die on the same day. They live different lives but vow to be on equal ground spiritually so they can be together for all eternity. So when one sins the other commits that same sin. When one repents, the other also repents. When one does a good deed, the other also follows suit. They manage to successfully accomplish their goal and die having completed identical lives in the eyes of God … with one exception unbeknownst to them.At the age of 40, one twin gets a promotion at work and is transferred to Bermuda while the other twin remains behind in the USA. During this same year both men grow tired of “rendering unto Caesar” and decide to stop paying their federal income taxes. So they spend the remaining 40 years of their lives evading taxes – twin A not paying in USA and twin B not paying in Bermuda.
Here’s the issue: there is no federal income tax law in Bermuda. Twin B only THOUGHT he was sinning by not paying taxes but in actuality no laws were broken. He died thinking he was a tax cheat even though technically he never was. Twin A however (as we all know) did break US law and therefore committed a sin by not paying taxes for 40 years.
This begs the question: are they in fact equal in sin? When judgement time comes, will they in fact be viewed as equals in a spiritual sense or no?
My initial reaction is that the Bermuda twin’s intent to break the law (and belief that he had carried it out) would have an impact upon his character. Similarly if someone where in a virtual reality similar to the “Matrix” movie, they could commit many “thought sins” where the individual chose and believed that they were doing wrong but no real harm was done because it was all in the virtual world with computer characters.
Therefore both twins would be of the same spiritual character at the end of 80 years.
mfree6464 wrote:
They live different lives but vow to be on equal ground spiritually so they can be together for all eternity.
I understand that this is an important part of the thought expirament but I do not believe that this reflects our doctrine. 1) If people are segregated based upon their spirituality then Jesus would be segragated and isolated in a solitary kingdom of one. 2) Through the atonement all individuals that are made partakers of the grace of Christ are credited with His perfection. Therefore all of the “children of Christ” are made equal. 3) If we believe in eternal progression then each person will be permitted to progress and become whatever they have the potential to achieve, unless they – with full knowledge and choice – choose to stop. Damnation in the sense of restricted growth is a self imposed limitation in the eternities.P.S. I am aware that points 2 and 3 conflict with the idea of a tiered reward in heaven and final judgement of our mortal deeds. There is contradiction and paradox that I have had to learn to accept.
This experiment presupposes that the expectations that God has for each of the twins (and for all of us by extension) are the same. To me, the bigger question is really “what did each twin do with what they had” – the course before them. While the experiment made the playing ground equal sin-wise, it does not specify a) what the expectations were (aside from mutual sins), and b) the personal spiritual trajectory of each twin. Whenever life is distilled into 2 categories (sinning vs not sinning), a huge dimension of spirituality is lost also.
It doesn’t matter what each of them did. Though their sins be as scarlet they will be made white as now. There but by the grace of God go we. The thread title really sums it up. Men want to make it much more complicated than it really is.
I think the root of your question is, does right action count, if done with the wrong intention. And I think, as far as intentions go, if a twin were to sin because they fell into temptation and lost their head, they’d be much better of than their sibling who chose to commit the same sin because the other did it. For sin, I like the analogy of “Chutes and Ladders”. Maybe that’s why it’s been around for 2500+ years. It’s a very Buddhist/Hindu doctrine, not Christian (unless you want to be very liberal and selective with certain scriptures). But instead of a final judgement, where all our actions are taken into account, and we are consigned to our final state, Buddhists believe that the ultimate goal, the big “100”, will be achieved by everyone. Some will just take longer than others. “Sin” is more of a roadblock or a chute, taking us back a few steps, rather than an eternal mark against us. They also look at sin as anything which brings suffering and discord (dukkha) into the world, rather than an a commandment from God. Back to the example of the twins, both of them took an action with the same intent, to disobey the law of the land. They both brought the same amount of “dukkha” upon themselves (theoretically). However, only the one in the USA brought “dukkha” upon others, since the Bermuda doesn’t require those taxes.
Which one is “futher ahead”? That depends on much more than this particular “sin”. But if I were to bet, I’d say neither one of them is very far.
My first reaction was similar to DJ’s: that it doesn’t really matter much. But I’ll add my $0.02 to hopefully continue an interesting thought experiment. I’ll look at it from a different angle. What if the two twins are born in a prison cell in a completely controlled environment. Everything about their lives is exactly the same. However, twin #1 for some reason has very vengeful and wicked thoughts while he is trapped in prison his whole life. All he wants to do is kill his captor and cause havoc in the world after he escapes. Twin #2 for some reason only wants to forgive his captor and wants to live a nice peaceful life after he escapes. Their actions are completely equal because neither can leave the prison cell – the only difference is their thoughts.
One might argue that since Jesus taught about committing adultery in our minds that perhaps that might apply to committing murder in our minds. Based on that, one can conclude that the twin who wanted murder, while perhaps understandable, didn’t live the gospel as well as the more peaceful twin.
Back to DJ’s point, though, I think that God will ask why the vengeful twin had such negative thoughts. Perhaps he had a gene that was flipped that made him more predisposed to violence. Perhaps the scenario wasn’t completely equal because he was first out of the womb and therefore his life isn’t completely equal. In the end I have to believe that God is more merciful than we can possibly imagine – it’s the only way I can wrap my head around all the terrible things supposedly good people do in this life.
DarkJedi wrote:
It doesn’t matter what each of them did.I likely would have disputed this a few years ago but now I strongly agree with you. It’s just what life has taught me recently and I really can’t deny that at this point.
DarkJedi wrote:
The thread title really sums it up. Men want to make it much more complicated than it really is.
I intentionally made the title a little click-baitish, sorry about that
Recognizing that God’s law changes (Law of Moses, Word of Wisdom, Polygamy, to name a few examples) it’s fair to say that in the hereafter we may be existing with individuals who all lived under various sets of commandments. Let’s extend that and hypothetically say that God commanded North American saints to live the Word of Wisdom but never put the saints in Bermuda under the same command. Twin A was living in Bermuda at the time God gave this commandment but somehow he missed the memo that he was exempt. Twin B calls up twin A and says, “Hey God just commanded us to quit drinking but I don’t wanna!” Wanting to stay together they both drink on, both believing they are in violation of God’s will.
Same question: Are they both in the same place spiritually?
I think this is an interesting question, but for me, it doesn’t have an answer. Part of me wants to quote that we are equal in the sight of God except for sin. But who sinned? If you make a choice to sin, thinking you are sinning, and then find it isn’t a sin, is it still a sin? It is a gray area where, sadly, I think we may never know, even after judgment day. SilentDawning wrote:
If you make a choice to sin, thinking you are sinning, and then find it isn’t a sin, is it still a sin?
That is the question. Interestingly, if the answer to that question is YES then that brings a new set of consequences into play. Example:
Say someone is placed on an island at birth, completely isolated with enough food to survive on his own for 80 years. He would never hear of God and his commandments nor would he learn of man’s laws. Say he came to the conclusion on his own as a young man that chopping down trees was murder. Then at 40 he grew tired of searching for fallen firewood and climbing palms for coconuts so he just chopped down trees for the rest of his life, all the while feeling terrible guilt that he was committing murder. At death he felt tremendous fear at the thought of meeting his maker and being held accountable for his great sins. Would God hold him accountable the same as he would say Hitler or any serial killer?
If my time on earth is any indication, there was a time I thought I’d done something terribly wrong and went to the Bishop to confess and accept any penalties. It turned out that what i did was really, really minor. I THOUGHT it was grievous, but it wasn’t so there was no penalty and I was told I didn’t even need to confess it! I was really, really young, and a new member of the church…. If Bishops really are judges in Israel, inspired and all that stuff, then the guy who lived on a desert island and chopped down a tree, thinking it was murder, wouldn’t receive punishment.
There is no definitive answer here, as scriptures are written to be general enough to be used in a wide variety of situations. People can justify opposing points of view with the same set of scriptures.
So, I’m left with personal belief… I believe that if there is judgment, and we continue to exist after this life:
1) There is an absolute standard of morality.
We won’t be judged against standards of morality that are higher than the absolute standard. So if we think tree felling is murder, then there is no penalty for it.
If we sin but this sin is due to cultural upbringing, misinformation, lack of training, mental illness, or extreme circumstances that make ‘sin’ the only alternative for the reasonable person with an otherwise good heart, then there will be little or no consequences. Kind of like suspended sentences, or probation, but no jail time, or less.
2) There will be considerable judgment applied for the host of situations that don’t fit neatly into any one “box”.
3) There will likely be more mercy than we think there will be.
4) Any punishment is likely to be temporary except in perhaps the most extreme of cases. There always has to be allowance for the extreme. Satan was apparently not sick, misinformed, or mentall ill — he was just evil.
Here are a few drivers of my opinion.
1. Personal experience with being in a judgment seat.
2. The fact that it takes resources to punish people for eternity. Even God will have to use some resources to keep people in whatever form of “hell” God places them. Is it realistic to keep those resources in place for eternity, even if rotated or shared?
3. God is supposed to be merciful. Is it fair to consign people to hell for eternity based on their relative blip of a life on earth? I think not, particularly if God, who can see all, knows the person has changed their character and truly repented.
I think this eternal damnation thing is a remnant of harsh times when hands would be cut off for stealing, people were tortured, publicly beheaded etcetera — before we had more merciful approaches to punishment.
mfree6464 wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
If you make a choice to sin, thinking you are sinning, and then find it isn’t a sin, is it still a sin?
That is the question. Interestingly, if the answer to that question is YES then that brings a new set of consequences into play. Example:
Say someone is placed on an island at birth, completely isolated with enough food to survive on his own for 80 years. He would never hear of God and his commandments nor would he learn of man’s laws. Say he came to the conclusion on his own as a young man that chopping down trees was murder. Then at 40 he grew tired of searching for fallen firewood and climbing palms for coconuts so he just chopped down trees for the rest of his life, all the while feeling terrible guilt that he was committing murder. At death he felt tremendous fear at the thought of meeting his maker and being held accountable for his great sins. Would God hold him accountable the same as he would say Hitler or any serial killer?
I honestly believe most of what are claimed to be God’s laws are man’s laws. Religion is heavily exploited by those in power to get others to do what they want (i.e. Divine-right monarchs, political parties, corporate entities, polygamists…). Not to mention, many are used for the proper function of modern society and civilization (monogamy, property ownership, respect for human life). In different societies, there are different commandments. For example, infanticide among the intuits, the walking marriages among the Mosuo, or how in old Norse culture, only those who died in battle got to go to Heaven (if you died of old age, sickness, etc, you went to “Hel”). Even atrocities such slaver or homicide aren’t always cut and dry. I think it’s absolutely fascinating to see the differences in morality between us western cultures, and those of the smaller (and sadly, fewer and fewer) isolated tribal cultures.
If God were to hold us accountable for man’s laws that we take to be His laws, He would be grossly unfair. You’d wind up with vast differences in the type of souls who made the cut. If God were to judge based on a set of laws irrespective of culture, some would be fated to fail from the moment they are born. If God were to magically, through the atonement, make us “fit for heaven”, then there is really little point to our lives and choices here.
TL;DR: No matter how you cut it, this world seems like a very flawed system for achieving any respectable goal (perfection/exaltation of man, lasting happiness, etc). God’s got some explaining to do; but I don’t think He will.
mfree6464 wrote:
Recognizing that God’s law changes (Law of Moses, Word of Wisdom, Polygamy, to name a few examples) it’s fair to say that in the hereafter we may be existing with individuals who all lived under various sets of commandments.
I have thought about this sometimes. In the history of our scriptures (OT, NT, BoM, D&C) there were some prophets that were very forceful and confident individuals with very different perspectives on religion and how to please God. I imagine that if we locked them all into the same room and asked them not to come out until they came to a cohesive message – they might never come out.Which one of them is closest to the Gospel as it is preacticed in heaven? All of them (and us) must be wrong to some degree? How can we distinguish between the truth and the error? What are the consequences for latching onto an error and believing it to be truth? Are we condemned for believing the wrong thing?
I imagine walking up in heaven with these words, “Forget everything you thought you knew. Eternal truth is so very different than anything that has been represented on the mortal plane.” I imagine that there would be an adustment period for everyone. The more fervently you held your erronious beliefs on earth – the harder it might be to let them go and the longer the adjustment period.
Roy wrote:
I imagine walking up in heaven with these words, “Forget everything you thought you knew. Eternal truth is so very different than anything that has been represented on the mortal plane.” I imagine that there would be an adustment period for everyone. The more fervently you held your erronious beliefs on earth – the harder it might be to let them go and the longer the adjustment period.
I fully believe that humans, in their current state, cannot grasp ultimate reality or understand eternal truth. If there’s an afterlife, I’m certain it will be very different from anything we can imagine now. But then… what’s the point of trying to grasp those things which are so far beyond human comprehension? Because a lot of religious leaders have tried to grasp them, and historically it hasn’t gone well. Even symbolic, non-literal approaches to certain “eternal truths”, can carry connotations with pretty dastardly results. Personally, I don’t think those “eternal truths” matter. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. It the meantime, those sort of questions and ponderings feel like more of a distraction. There is pain and suffering, and plenty we can do about it. We can find peace and happiness here and now. The rest is irrelevant.
Quote:
“Then wake up and do something moreThan dream of your mansion above.
Doing good is a pleasure, a joy beyond measure,
A blessing of duty and love.”
Back to the OP, what if an Israelite back in Moses’ time, found out their neighbor was gay. Would it be considered a sin if that Israelite stoned their gay neighbor? Would it be considered a sin if they refused? Or is stoning anyone a terrible thing to do, regardless of what God or anyone else has to say about it?
I truly believe most people do the best they can, even if it looks to themselves and others like they aren’t trying. I gave up trying to judge sin a long time ago and focused instead on just trying to do my best – and not stress out about what judgment I would receive in the end. Maybe that is a lazy approach, but it also keeps me from becoming a judgmental jerk.
Old Timer wrote:
it also keeps me from becoming a judgmental jerk.
PSA message from Curt: “Don’t Be A Jerk!”:thumbup:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.