askandanswer

Members
  • Content Count

    3436
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    askandanswer reacted to NeuroTypical in Gays, blacks and the church   
    If you listen to certain folks with agendas to push for various social or economic changes, and the politicians who wish to obtain their vote, you will hear how little things have changed for this or that group.  Or how things have gotten worse.  
    If you listen to historians, certain folks who politically oppose that first group of folks, economists, people who understand statistics or how to do research, and people with a valid and deep interest in truth, you'll often hear a broader, more correct, more valid opinion about things.  Occasionally they'll agree with the first group, but they'll be able to demonstrate why they agree, in ways other than simple virtue signaling or outrage peddling.
  2. Like
    askandanswer reacted to CV75 in Gays, blacks and the church   
    The simplest key that I have found is that the Church makes no connection between sexuality (which is more than orientation) and marriage, only gender and marriage; that marriage is not dependent on the couple's sexuality , but their gender only. So, sexuality becomes an issue for married couples, or for individuals who in good faith will not pursue marriage (or stay in it) because of issues related to sexuality. The Lord will guide everyone who seeks His will.
  3. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Backroads in Amelia King   
    I'm only seeing things from a very great distance, but isn't it the case that anybody with a licence to concealed carry might be bringing a gun to school with them every day? The way I read it, she said she was going to bring loaded guns to school. I had the impression that in the US it was a relatively common occurence for people to bring loaded guns to school?  In the context of this incident I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between something who says they will bring a gun to school and someone who actually brings one. How is one worse than the other? If she had said what she was going to do with those guns, and if what she proposed to do was violent and damaging to people or property 'then that to me would sound like a threat. Without explicitly stating her intentions, we are left to guess, and I think we start on a slippery slope when we start handing out convictions on the basis of guesses. I think that if her actions are outside the norm, and again, I'm saying this from a distance, then perhaps at most they might be enough to get her onto a police watch list for a while. 
  4. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Grunt in Amelia King   
    Just out of curiousity, in relation to this case, could you hazard a guess as to what extent the decision to charge might have been driven by 1) a genuine belief by the charging officers that the law might have been broken, or 2) a reaction to the public's reaction?
  5. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Well, we may not see those investigators again...   
    !!
    I'm surprised to hear at the lengths that some people will go to demonstrate their hatred, ignorance and fear. Surely if you no longer believe someting, all you should do is just walk away and leave it alone. I dont understand the need to try and bring others with you.
  6. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Just_A_Guy in Amelia King   
    I’m sure public public pressure plays a role.  But the question is:  are they charging because they personally have political animus towards the defendant; or are they charging because they feel like—regardless of the partisan affiliations of the parties at play—this is just a behavior that they don’t want to become commonplace, and so the more publicly it’s done, the more publicly they have to slam the door on it?
    Thats not a question I could begin to answer in this case.
  7. Thanks
    askandanswer reacted to Just_A_Guy in Amelia King   
    It depends on state law.  In Virginia, my understanding is that a CCW does not allow you to carry on a school campus (unless you’re in your car in a pick up/drop off zone).
    And, it’s one thing to coincidentally carry a gun.  It’s another to get in a screaming match whose gist is “I’m right because next Tuesday at 9 AM I will be at your workplace with a GUN!”  It’s a verbal equivalent of brandishing, which is also often a crime (for example, if you cut me off on my freeway, I don’t get to pull out my handgun, kiss it, look you straight in the eye, and then put it away.  If you happen to have it a gun and crap happens to go down, then okay—but if you take an extra step to make people know you have it, then you’d darned well better need it.)
    It’s really hard to put an innocuous meaning to her words.  I mean, maybe it’s possible—that’ll be her attorney’s job.  But it’s hard for me to imagine one, given the context that we’re being offered so far.  
  8. Like
    askandanswer reacted to MarginOfError in Amelia King   
    I'm sorry, but I'm going to come down firmly on the side of charging people who do such things with a crime. 
    In this particular case, King stated that if the masking requirement were put in effect: 
    How is that not supposed to be interpreted as, at the very least, an attempt to intimidate decision makers into implementing her preferred policy?  That very nearly fits the definition of terrorism (the CFR doesn't explicitly denote speech acts under terrorism, see 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
    Do I believe she should be charged and, if convicted, sentenced to decades in prison?  No, probably not. But community services and fines seem appropriate, because intimidating speech should not be normalized in our public discourse. If we were to merely say, "yeah, but she was exaggerating and wouldn't actually do it," all we do is normalize intimidation tactics. That provides no benefit to our culture and society, and it shouldn't be tolerated.
  9. Thanks
    askandanswer reacted to Vort in Gays, blacks and the church   
    On the balance, not very well. There are parallels, but IMO not many good ones. I have slightly modified some of these points you made to clarify their intent and my answers.
    —The ban [on temple marriage] is specific to those who are of black sub-Saharan African descent act on same sex attraction. Men with black skin People who feel but don't act on same sex attraction can and do currently (1976) hold the Priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the temple.
    This one is true on its face, but the reasoning is far different. In one case, it is acts and attitudes that fully determine that a person has disqualified himself from temple worthiness. In the other case, worthiness per se is not even at issue; it's purely a matter of ancestry.
    [II]—The ban exists for a reason, even if we have not explicitly been given that reason
    This one doesn't work at all. We have indeed explicitly been given the reason in the law of chastity. This law cannot be forced into an interpretation that allows homosexual unions.
    [III]—Many Church leaders, including General Authorities, have given both spoken and published reasoning on why people who act on same sex attraction people of black sub-Saharan African descent cannot hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple blessings. Are these men not specifically charged with defining Church doctrine? Why, then, ought we not simply accept their doctrinal explanations?
    I think this might be accepted for both issues. For some reason, the Church has bent over backward to establish that old ideas about racial "guilt" do not constitute the current interpretations or teachings of the Church on the matter of blacks and the Priesthood, and in fact never did. (I'm not sure what to make of that last claim, when it's obvious that it was indeed commonly taught in the Church that the curse of Cain blah blah blah, and it was taken as established fact that premortal actions played into the issue. But...whatever.) So it does appear that the Church is willing to back wholesale off of unpopular claims from the past, even while not specifically repudiating them. Again, not sure what to make of the whole thing. But sure, we can look for previous teaching to explain both the Priesthood ban and why homosexuals can't marry same-sex partners in the holy temples of God. The latter one seems far more obvious, though. No arcane theories or questionable histories needed.
    [IV]—The Priesthood temple marriage ban is effectively a curse to those whom it renders unable to receive the Priesthood or its blessings as expressed in the temple. So these people are, in effect, a cursed people. No one denies that they may be saved and even exalted with the rest of the Saints, but as to Priesthood and temple blessings today, they are cursed. Objecting to this wording while ignoring the simple facts of the matter constitutes straining out perhaps non-existent gnats while swallowing some very large camels.
    Nope, not the same at all. Black Saints were withheld from receiving the Priesthood and temple blessings through no fault in their own worthiness, but simply and completely because they were of black sub-Saharan African descent. This is an externally applied "curse" that applied to them, despite their best efforts and notwithstanding their personal holiness.
    Homosexuals are "cursed" only in the sense that every other sinner in the kingdom of God (or anywhere else) is "cursed": As we sin, we lose privilege with God. We may go so far as to lose the privilege of serving in the temple, or even of losing our membership in the kingdom altogether. By its very nature, this is a far different thing from the Priesthood "curse".
    [V]—So while we are obligated by him whose Church this is to welcome such people into our meetings and even into the very waters of baptism, we must certainly teach our children about the temple ban and why they must never date or otherwise plan to marry those of black sub-Saharan African descent, who are LGBTQ, even fellow Saints.
    I do not even understand what the comparison here would be. If you're a boy, don't marry your boyfriend? That kind of thing is purely a matter of obedience to the law of chastity. I don't see how such a conversation would even enter into a discussion with my children on the topic. I'm not going to instruct my children, "Hey, now, don't go marrying some homosexual, because if s/he's the same sex as you, you can't be sealed in the temple, and if s/he's not the same sex, then, um, your covenants would be at stake if, you know, your spouse started doing homosexual activity." There is no comparison at all that I can find here.
    Anyway, there's my feedback, FWIW.
  10. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Vort in prisonchaplain is back   
    Well no, not quite all is well - you've been away for a year!
  11. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Vort in Gays, blacks and the church   
    Adding to JAG's excellent list (though still puzzling about #5 within the context of the question), here are a few more, at least some of which will doubtless be less well-received than those items given by JAG, but which I think would very much be present in the thought processes of any believing Latter-day Saint of the time period:
    —The ban is specific to those of black sub-Saharan African descent. Men with black skin can and do currently (1976) hold the Priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the temple.
    —The ban exists for a reason, even if we have not explicitly been given that reason.
    —Many Church leaders, including General Authorities, have given both spoken and published reasoning on why people of black sub-Saharan African descent cannot hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple blessings. Are these men not specifically charged with defining Church doctrine? Why, then, ought we not simply accept their doctrinal explanations?
    —Not everyone wants to accept the "curse-of-Cain-passed-down-through-the-generations" idea, but what's the difference? The Priesthood ban is effectively a curse to those whom it renders unable to receive the Priesthood or its blessings as expressed in the temple. So these people are, in effect, a cursed people. No one denies that they may be saved and even exalted with the rest of the Saints, but as to Priesthood and temple blessings today, they are cursed. Objecting to this wording while ignoring the simple facts of the matter constitutes straining out perhaps non-existent gnats while swallowing some very large camels.
    —Those who mix their seed with this cursed subset of people bring upon their posterity forever after the same curse. Who in his right mind would do such a thing? So while we are obligated by him whose Church this is to welcome such people into our meetings and even into the very waters of baptism, we must certainly teach our children about the Priesthood/temple ban and why they must never date or otherwise plan to marry those of black sub-Saharan African descent, even fellow Saints.
    I am aware from my own experience that exactly such attitudes existed at the time. I can hardly see how it could possibly be otherwise.
  12. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Anddenex in Gays and the church   
    I’m getting a little confused about these discussions of the natural man and this is the way God created me. I thought that the man that God created in the garden of Eden was a perfect man, and only became a natural man after he fell. This suggests that he became a natural man as a result of his own actions and not as a result of anything that God did. Did God make something that has faults, that is less than perfect? That sounds like a strange thought to me. I suspect that in creating us, God worked with whatever we brought to the table. His part of the process was probably perfect but He was perhaps working with spirit material that was not. I'm not sure if its fair or correct to put the blame on God for being who or what we are. 
  13. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from SilentOne in Repetition of Testimony   
    It may be that there are different types of knowledge, like there are different types of ore, and we use whatever is the most appropriate tool for whatever kind or knowledge, or ore, we are looking for. If a person wants secular knowledge then perhaps secular tools would be the most appropriate kind, although there would still be a role for spiritual tools in the form of inspiration. If a person wants spiritual knowledge, such as a testimony and a conviction of the truthfulness of the gospel, then I expect that spiritual tools would be the most approriate tools to use, although there would still be a role for secular tools in the form of study. 
  14. Thanks
    askandanswer reacted to JohnsonJones in Gays, blacks and the church   
    I believe there WAS a letter of sorts from George Albert Smith.  It also declared it doctrine in regards to how the Church viewed the matter. 
    We have been blessed to see much of the fulfillment of the prophecies given by the early prophets in the Church.
    There may be similarities we can see, but there are also differences.
    One of the MOST racist things I believe I've seen is from the LGBT movement in general, especially the LGB portion of it.  Someone who is Gay or Lesbian or Bi can meld very easily in with everyone else if they so desire.  No one can tell what their orientation is if the individual chooses not to reveal it.  On the otherhand, minorities do not have that ability.  Their skin tone and features are not things they can simply turn on or off depending on how "safe" or "unsafe" they may feel.  It is on 100% of the time.  Saying that the struggle that LGB individuals suffer from is equal to that of the racism minorities suffer is EXTREMELY racist in my opinion and is trying to lessen how much racism actually affects and impacts minorities.  The closest comparison they could have is the discrimination that those who have transitioned and are Transgender suffer from.  That discrimination is strong enough that it contributes to the problem that there is a HIGH amount of suicide among the Transgender community (enough to warrant a great deal more concern than has been given).  Most of the LGB portion of the LGBT community cannot even IMAGINE this type of discrimination much less experience it.  Racism is FAR more severe (as well as that against Transgender) BECAUSE you cannot hide it, it is 100% on all the time.  By trying to say it is the same, LGBT are trying to lessen how bad Racism actually and to my mind is an EXTREMELY racist type of take.
    This is not unusual from what I understand.  In discussions with peers I understand that there is actually a GREAT DEAL of racism in the deeper parts (the portions of the community that focuses more on making LGB a foundation of their identity as well as politics that go with it) of the LGBT community and terrible racial incidents occur on a regular basis against minorities in the LGBT community itself. 
    With that in mind, before the revelation there was a great deal of conflict in some areas.  There were some members that were pushing very strongly for Blacks to be able to have the priesthood.  Others felt very strongly that they should not have the priesthood.  When the revelation happened, I did not see many leave the church over it (this is purely anecdotal evidence, I had no access to actual membership numbers at the time).  The members accepted the revelation and proceeded without complaint from MY Perspective.  I was much younger at the time and so perhaps I missed a thing or two, but from what I saw, everyone accepted the revelation.
    It turned out to be well timed and a great blessing to the church.  The church grew at an unprecedented rate after that revelation and for several years afterwards.
    I'm not sure what would happen today if the First Presidency came out with a similar revelation regarding LGBT folks.  I know I may have to pray sincerely about it.  A MAJOR difference in this is that the Blacks and the Preisthood is NOT something that is mentioned in the Bible.  It is briefly touched upon in the Pearl of Great Price, but no where else is it really discussed.
    Homosexuality on the otherhand is discussed and condemned in the Bible and directly by apostles who saw and spoke with the Savior, with a greater emphasis on Paul who may not have been one of the original twelve, but is seen by some as the apostle specifically sent to the Gentiles.  Many try to make excuses of why his statements do not apply to homosexual activities (trying to say it only applies to prostitution or other areas), but in general they are ignoring a LOT of the context and how it is worded and phrased in order to try to make that excuse.  From all normal readings of the scripture, it is a strict condemnation of Homosexuality (in the same way that other verses would condemn incest and bestiality which if read in how those excusing homosexuality did, would read VERY differently as well).
    Which is where I think it would get very problematic very quickly.  The scriptures are rather explicit on the condemnation of homosexuality.  I feel I may have great difficulty if a revelation came accepting Gay Marriage as a temple opportunity.  I feel I would have a great deal of praying in dealing with it, but that is me looking at it from the perspective of how I feel currently.
    Some have suggested ONE form of temple ordinance that could stand in for it, but it still doesn't excuse the explicit homosexual actions.  It used to be that men could be sealed to men as fathers and sons or brothers to each other.  This could be a way to seal men to each other, but this still would not allow homosexual activities nor actions as they would still be banned as per scriptural and modern statements.
    I think the major difference has already been pointed out multiple times in the thread already.  Those who are LGB (but not necessarily T, that stands on it's own and unlike the other portion of LGBT, someone who has transitioned MAY actually feel discrimination similarly to how racism is acted upon as it can occasionally be very obvious about if the individual transitioned or not) can perform all the functions of a church member if they are worthy.  They are not automatically banned due to how they feel. 
    Someone tried to point out that they cannot be sealed to someone they love in this life.  This assumes that marriage is a sealing of people in love.  This is UNTRUE.  A sealing is not dependent on people loving each other (though it probably helps).  In Joseph Smiths time, and definitely during Brigham Young's time, there were marriage sealings that had no love in them (at least yet) between those being sealed together in marriage.  Sealing unites families together for eternity, normally with a Husband and wife being sealed and thus their children born after that are automatically part of that unity.
    This is ONE ordinance, normally called a sealing ordinance.  It is done DIFFERENTLY than other ordinances.  I cannot get into the details, but the ordinance to seal children to parents is different than the one that seals a husband and wife together for eternity.  It is done by the same power, but the form and function behind it is different.
    In that same light, IF (and that is a BIG IF) Gay Marriage ever became an ordinance allowed in sealing in some form, it is SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT than that of a Man and a Woman being sealed by it's very nature.  It is NOT the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman.
    In that light, NO ONE has access to an ordinance that unites to men in a Gay Marriage for eternity. 
    If a LGBT individual WISHES to participate in the Marriage Sealing as a Husband or Wife, that option is always open to them if the strongly desire it (but it may not be a wise choice for many of them).  ALL ordinances available to all members are available to those who are LGB (but not necessarily those who are T) if they are worthy of them.
    This is a MAJOR difference between when Blacks could not hold the priesthood and the current situation where many of those who are LGBT want a NEW ORDINANCE CREATED that allows Gay Marriages to be sealed for eternity in temples.
  15. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Anddenex in Gays and the church   
    I’m getting a little confused about these discussions of the natural man and this is the way God created me. I thought that the man that God created in the garden of Eden was a perfect man, and only became a natural man after he fell. This suggests that he became a natural man as a result of his own actions and not as a result of anything that God did. Did God make something that has faults, that is less than perfect? That sounds like a strange thought to me. I suspect that in creating us, God worked with whatever we brought to the table. His part of the process was probably perfect but He was perhaps working with spirit material that was not. I'm not sure if its fair or correct to put the blame on God for being who or what we are. 
  16. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from CV75 in Gays, blacks and the church   
    Thanks to newsroom article you linked to I now have a better understanding than I did yesterday. It's interesting and helpful to see Elder Wickman say the following from the article:
    ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”
    Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
    The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.
    The idea that same sex attraction is only a temporary, temporal condition is consistent with the speculation I raised in another thread that same sex attraction could be a deliberately selected trial for mortality aimed at achieving a post-mortal outcome. It makes much more sense to choose a trial knowing that it will only be of temporary duration than choosing something that will be of eternal duration. 
  17. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Gays, blacks and the church   
    This ^^ might be a little optimistic
    34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
    I don't think we've received enough information at this time to know how being gay in the next life might affect a person's situation in that life but the above scripture suggests that if you are faithful and gay in this life you are likely to be faithful and gay in the next.   
     
  18. Haha
    askandanswer got a reaction from LDSGator in Gays, blacks and the church   
    I'm not too worried about this - I've actually torn that day off my calendar  
  19. Haha
    askandanswer got a reaction from LDSGator in Gays, blacks and the church   
    I'm not too worried about this - I've actually torn that day off my calendar  
  20. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from CV75 in Gays, blacks and the church   
    Thanks to newsroom article you linked to I now have a better understanding than I did yesterday. It's interesting and helpful to see Elder Wickman say the following from the article:
    ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”
    Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
    The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.
    The idea that same sex attraction is only a temporary, temporal condition is consistent with the speculation I raised in another thread that same sex attraction could be a deliberately selected trial for mortality aimed at achieving a post-mortal outcome. It makes much more sense to choose a trial knowing that it will only be of temporary duration than choosing something that will be of eternal duration. 
  21. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from CV75 in Gays, blacks and the church   
    Thanks to newsroom article you linked to I now have a better understanding than I did yesterday. It's interesting and helpful to see Elder Wickman say the following from the article:
    ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”
    Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
    The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.
    The idea that same sex attraction is only a temporary, temporal condition is consistent with the speculation I raised in another thread that same sex attraction could be a deliberately selected trial for mortality aimed at achieving a post-mortal outcome. It makes much more sense to choose a trial knowing that it will only be of temporary duration than choosing something that will be of eternal duration. 
  22. Thanks
    askandanswer reacted to CV75 in Gays, blacks and the church   
    A similarity I see is that the Brethren 1) exercise the keys in consideration of societal pressure (those who want change); and 2) do not bow to societal pressure (those who oppose change).
    Another similarity is that 1) God loves everyone equally and desires equal access to the happiness provided by every ordinance irrespective of race or sexual preference (those who want change); 2) God defines the ordinances, and we do not (those who oppose change).
    A major difference in my mind is that the lifting of the priesthood ban on Blacks was foreseen and spoken of by the President of Church, and to our knowledge no President has foreseen same-sex temple marriage.
  23. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Just_A_Guy in Gays, blacks and the church   
    This presupposes that a brain chemically/physiologically inclined towards homosexuality is nevertheless in its “proper and perfect frame” (see Alma 40:23), which is odd because we know there can be physiological irregularities in the brain that influence all kinds of predispositions and behavior—including sexuality.
  24. Like
    askandanswer reacted to CV75 in Gays, blacks and the church   
    I think in retrospect the Church has a done a better job of implementing positive change with OD2 than American society has in general with implementing positive change for Blacks (see the news!), which is still extremely problematic and weakens our society. Underlying this is the hand of the Lord in directing those who exercise the keys upon the earth, while those in society do the best they can with what they've got (politics), with mixed or negative results for society at large. I believe that the Brethren will continue to exercise the keys in a way that improves society (builds Zion)much more successfully than society.
  25. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Anddenex in Gays and the church   
    I’m getting a little confused about these discussions of the natural man and this is the way God created me. I thought that the man that God created in the garden of Eden was a perfect man, and only became a natural man after he fell. This suggests that he became a natural man as a result of his own actions and not as a result of anything that God did. Did God make something that has faults, that is less than perfect? That sounds like a strange thought to me. I suspect that in creating us, God worked with whatever we brought to the table. His part of the process was probably perfect but He was perhaps working with spirit material that was not. I'm not sure if its fair or correct to put the blame on God for being who or what we are.