- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Brown wrote:
The problem I have with the justice and mercy doctrine is that this game we call life is rigged. Everyone automatically fails the test and needs mercy. the exact opposite of what we are told was Satan’s plan. Instead of everybody automatically winning, everyone automatically loses. I don’t mean to mock the plan, but it frustrates me to be taking a test that nobody can pass. Now I understand life was designed to learn and grow, but if it is a lesson, why are there eternal consequences based on how well you can grasp the material and how fast you can apply it? Even more frustrating is that your ability to excel in this “class” is determined by things you have no control over, such as your parents, your genetic predispositions, and your place of birth. Why are most put in situations where the learning material will never be made available. And why is the learning material so vague as to be impossible to fully grasp until the class is over?
To spin off this, this ambiguous path to “winning” (ambiguous because we can’t really know for sure it’s the actual path) is often hijacked by others who claim to be the spokespeople of the author of the plan! Jim Jones, for example, religious leaders in general. Perhaps the leaders of our Church who sincerely believe their role as inspired mouthpieces of God….that thought keeps coming to me more and more frequently lately as I’ve descended into my own new perspective on religion etcetera.
But I stay as I have no indication of where else to go…and I HAVE had spiritual experiences….
SilentDawning wrote:…that thought keeps coming to me more and more frequently lately as I’ve moved forward with my own new perspective on religion etc.
Fixed.As to the original question, like pretty much every question about a religious dogma, this one cannot be answered definitively. Ultimately, it must come down to what works for you in your relationship with God. As a missionary, however, I was as guilty as the next guy (or gal), using the analogy about getting a traffic ticket, or buying a house, or going to jail, or whatever it was, and standing there expectantly after relating the analogy, waiting for the light to turn on. I had just explained it all in detail! It was so simple! But for me it’s not so simple any longer.
I assume that the vast majority of non-Christians have no sacrificial figure in their theology, yet they operate in a world of ‘sin’ just like we do. How do they understand the concept of being forgiven, or is that even somthing that they think about? Do any other groups think about repentance in the same sort of way that we, as Christians, do? If not, what is it that takes its place?
Pretty much every religion operates with the foundational concept of becoming “in tune” or “connected” or “sealed” or in some other real way “at one” with deity – and they deal with the disconnect between our “goal” and our “reality” in much the same way, albeit with a particular symbolism that is unique. The exception, in many ways, is Protestant Christianity. Maybe I’ll write a post about that at some point – but probably not. It’s a fascinating topic, but it takes practically a dissertation to explain it adequately – and I tend to stay away from that type of dissertation in a public forum like this, since it is highly critical in nature.
Old-Timer wrote:It’s a fascinating topic, but it takes practically a dissertation to explain it adequately – and I tend to stay away from that type of dissertation in a public forum like this, since it is highly critical in nature.
Sorry, but I agree wholeheartedly with this, almost to the point of chuckling loudly
😆 Yes, we are a critical bunch aren’t we? Critical in both an academic thinking sense, and also, just plain critical at times….however, in my view, consistent with my life experiences…Old-Timer wrote:Maybe I’ll write a post about that at some point – but probably not. It’s a fascinating topic, but it takes practically a dissertation to explain it adequately – and I tend to stay away from that type of dissertation in a public forum like this, since it is highly critical in nature.
I took that to mean that, in your opinion, such a dissertation would necessarily be critical of people’s religious ideas, ar at least might be perceived that way, not that we would try to tear you apart if you posted it. Besides, I never took you for being one to be scared of a tussle. Did I misunderstand? I, for one, would love to hear your ideas on the topic. This is something I am struggling with at the moment.
I think the most rational answer and one that makes the most sense is he did not. If you start from the premise that there was an atonement you need to reconcile why. If I however I say it was just a story then it makes a lot more sense, and I do not need to try and explain the unexplainable. brown, your conclusion was correct. I really don’t like to be highly critical publicly of others’ beliefs – especially if those beliefs “work” for them. I hope that has been clear from my many comments here. I can do it (and have done it) when I feel it is necessary, but I don’t like to do it. I can be blunt, as everyone here knows, but being brutal is something I don’t like to do – and my view of much of the creedal foundation of modern Protestantism is pretty brutal. My really short version is that Protestantism, in many ways, has institutionalized Lucifer’s plan at the theological level (especially Calvin’s legacy and the idea of “easy grace”) – so you can see what I mean by “highly critical”. I am NOT saying Protestants worship Satan or anything remotely similar to that (certainly not consciously) – since I don’t believe that, at all. I am saying, however, when you look at the foundational aspects of what we believe to be Lucifer’s plan, there is a reason our temple endowment ceremony can include some of Lucifer’s comments and have those statements be a correct presentation of the Protestant theological condition of our modern day. (references to the God of this world and the extent of Lucifer’s current power in the world)
I don’t mean to be coy, but I’m not sure right now I want to say more.
Old-Timer wrote:My really short version is that Protestantism, in many ways, has institutionalized Lucifer’s plan at the theological level (especially Calvin’s legacy and the idea of “easy grace”) – so you can see what I mean by “highly critical”. I am NOT saying Protestants worship Satan or anything remotely similar to that (certainly not consciously) – since I don’t believe that, at all. I am saying, however, when you look at the foundational aspects of what we believe to be Lucifer’s plan, there is a reason our temple endowment ceremony can include some of Lucifer’s comments and have those statements be a correct presentation of the Protestant theological condition of our modern day. (references to the God of this world and the extent of Lucifer’s current power in the world)
I don’t mean to be coy, but I’m not sure right now I want to say more.
What I find particularly amusing about this is that a minister of a Protestant faith told me WE have done exactly the same thing in Mormonism!!! By indicating that even murderers and fornicators are spared of hell (going to the telestial kingdom rather than outer darkness, which matches Protestant hell in many respects) we have made “the road to hell even wider” as we give people an easy ride. So, we have the Mormons considering the Protestants institutionalizers of Satan’s plan, and Protestants considering Mormons as institutionalizers of Satan’s plan. It’s circular situations like this that have me taking a much wider, kinder, more tolerant view of everyone who has an interest in religion (not that you aren’t Ray, I don’t mean that). In fact, I’ve reached the conclusion that I have a lot in common with Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes. I KNOW NOTHING!!! I honestly don’t know what truth is anymore, only that I should stay with my current religion and take from it as much good as I possibly can.
Not to digress, but I wish my new Avatar had Schulz saying ” I see EVERYTHING, I hear EVERYTHING,
yet I KNOWNOTHING!!!!”Yeah, SD – but the real irony to me is that it’s those arrogant, exclusive Mormons who believe God will save more of his children. That always cracks me up – that we are called exclusivists (that “only Mormons will be saved”) by the very people whose theology is FAR more exclusive than ours. In a very real way, we are being criticized for having a theology that posits a power in Christ’s atonement and suffering that is FAR more expansive and inclusive (truly universal, when you consider the idea that even the Sons of Perdition will be resurrected and rule over Lucifer in the end) than that of those who criticize us the most vocally.
Sometimes, all I can do is smile and shake my head.
Honestly, I might write more detail at some point, but I have to think about it more. I have explained it to my kids, but that is a private forum. I’ll consider it, since I can give another quick summary if I decide to expand it here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.