Feta

This is the kind of insane thinking that religion produces. You're saying god purposefully caused a child to be sexually abused, and you are grateful for it? Even if the experience caused you to turn to god, thanking him for giving you such a horrible, damaging experience seems off to me.

OK. I'm feeling a little dumb because I'm not understanding this. If what Amulek said is true, why did Christ suffer? Packer's parable about the debtor, creditor and arbitrator implies that Christ is paying God for our sins with his suffering. He says we are living on spiritual credit. The only way I and think to reconcile Packer and Amulek is to say that Christ is the exception. He is the only one that can pay off God and become our new creditor. If, as you say, Christ did not "pay" for our sins, then how was God appeased? How was justice fulfilled?

Through the atonement, we can assume suffering is an established method of redemption for sin. However, are you saying that's not a valid method for us to become clean, because we are imperfect, and only a perfect, sinless person and suffer for our sins? If Jesus was able to meet the demands of justice through suffering, why can't we? If Jesus was unable to fulfill his role as our savior, would God have lost every one of his children by casting us off forever?

Thanks for the link. I have a few questions about it. 1) Packer says, "Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit." What is that spiritual credit? What have we received on credit? 2) Why is mercy necessary? Packer says, "Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing." I don't see the problem with that. If Jesus could take the full punishment for the sins of every person who has or will ever live, surely we can take the full punishment for our own individual sins. I'm just not seeing the requirement for the mediator. Jesus suffered for all of our sins in a matter of hours, and then it was over. When we die, why can't our loving father just spend a couple hours delivering whatever horrible punishment he sees fit, and then move on? I'm sure I seem incredibly dense to you, but please enlighten me!

Why did Jesus have to suffer at all? To me, it seems more logical that everyone should suffer for their own sins. I don't see the need for a savior. I'm sure there's a logical explanation-- I just can't think of it.

OK that makes sense. It's conceivable that Moroni could have carried the 50-60 lb plates, the breastplate, the sword of laban, and the Urim and Thummim around 3,500 or so miles over several decades. But based on the accounts of several people, there are many, many more sets of records in the hill in New York. More than Moroni could have possibly carried by himself. In my reading of the BoM it sounds like he was alone, could he possibly have had a team of people to help him haul all these records? Or is it possible he made several trips between New York and Central America?

I believe those maps show the location were the kinderhook plates were buried. Why do you think Moroni went there?

You didn't. My mistake. Yikes.

I think it's interesting. Am I not allowed to be here just because I don't believe any of it?

These may be dumb questions, but I'll ask anyway. Didn't Moroni bury the plates in the hill Cumorah in Manchester, New York? Doesn't that mean that Moroni probably didn't live in Central America?

You do not have evidence that there are no coins on your chair, but you also don't have any reason to believe there are coins on your chair. You wouldn't mock someone who said it's plausible. It is plausible. Here is a more applicable version of your analogy: No one in this country has found a coin in a chair... ever. However people claim that there are millions of coins in the chairs of this country, we just have not found them yet. Surely, as soon as people start digging their fingers deeper into the cushions they will find a plethora of coins. Yes, I would mock someone who was pushing that theory. I'm not saying there is absolutely no possibility of the remnants of a huge civilization under the ground. All I'm saying is that it's very unlikely given the evidence: 1) We have tons of remnants and artifacts from civilizations earlier than the ones in the BoM. 2) We know of no major changes to the landscape of north america between then and now that would completely hide their cities. (The hill cumorah is still there after all!) 3) No artifacts from these people have been found. Even though they supposedly were able to produce items that would last a very long time.

Why not? I do not believe that the jaredites, nephites, and lamanites existed, because there is no evidence of them. How is that not evidence based? You shouldn't require people to provide proof for things that are obvious. No one told me that cats don't believe in Jesus, it was an educated guess based on my experience with cats. The evidence suggests that not one of my pets has made a single attempt to worship Christ, despite everyone else in the household outwardly worshiping Christ. Any reasonable person would assume that my pets did not believe in god. That makes them atheists. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of gods. I think most atheists would agree that their disbelief comes from the lack of evidence for god. I think they would agree that the things they do believe in, they believe because of the evidence. How is that not a belief system?

I'm very open to new information. Please let me know what's random and senseless about my arguments. I haven't talked to or read any teenage atheists, so I'm probably not parroting their thoughts. Are you saying the remnants of millions of people are just buried? Forgive me for thinking that's unlikely.

I think stonewalling is OK when the question is ridiculous, but I admit there is no proof that other animals don't believe in god. I have read that most animals are incapable of abstract thought - a requirement for religion - but I cannot provide proof. If you think animals are capable of believing in god, you'd better start your cats on the missionary discussions. How do you account for the absence of remnants of the great Jaredite, Nephite, and Lamanite civilizations?

I'm a fast learner.:) You can learn a lot in a single day when you're focused. You've got to be joking.