The Golden Rule

[Adomini22]

<div class='quotemain'>

I agree with you CK. It is not God's fault, it's ours. Sin.

Only thing is I would point to the parable of the talents. The man with 2 and the man with 5 dd not start or end equal but they did the best with what they were given. We are not all blessed with the same talents and strengths or the same weaknesses

Charley

Sure, but we are rewarded the same if our actions and intentions are good. AKA Celestial Kingdom..

[CrimsonKairos]

Only thing is I would point to the parable of the talents. The man with 2 and the man with 5 dd not start or end equal but they did the best with what they were given. We are not all blessed with the same talents and strengths or the same weaknesses

True, but if God truly created us out of nothing...if we weren't pre-existing intelligences or spirits or what have you (which is what the majority of non-LDS Christians believe), then in that parable, the fact that the man hid his talents would be the fault of God since God would have created him that way.

In fact, going further, the scriptures don't really make sense without the doctrine of the pre-existence of all of us as spirit children of God.

If God made Adam and Eve out of nothing (I'm not talking about their physical bodies only), then He made them innocent and perfect, which is what you'd expect a God to do. But suddenly, just because Adam and Eve at some forbidden fruit, God starts creating sinful beings such as Cain?

[Doctor Steuss]

"If G-d created everything out of nothing, and G-d is all-powerful (and all-knowing), then G-d is ultimately responsible for every creation and the way said creation acts and responds. "

Yeah, except that whole thing about agency. All were innocent and pure before God in the pre-existence. We all fit one general "mold". Then we were given the option to choose. After that, we decided where we ended up.

But, if G-d created everything out of nothing, was all-knowing, all-powerful and agency did not exist before He created it, then by extension He is responsible for all actions that result from it. Also, “agency” does not presuppose that wrongful actions could be made per se if the creations are given a nature that has a predisposition to non-sinful actions.

If I put a goldfish in a tank, and know everything about the fish, am I controlling its actions? um....NO.

Did you create the goldfish? Could you have created the goldfish differently if you chose to? Did you have to give the goldfish the ability to swim left if it wanted to?

People do what they choose to do. God isnt responsible if I get angry and drive my car in a house and kill someone. I dont see how this concept is hard to understand, personally.

I don’t see how it’s all that hard to understand either. I’m just trying to point out some of the sticky issues that are created from the ex nihilo paradigm. I’m by no means saying that my interpretation of the logical conclusions of this doctrine are necessarily the only ones (I am perfectly happy affording my brothers and sisters that adhere to this the option of “G-d’s ways aren’t our ways…”, etc.). I’m merely stating how it can potentially lead to a belief in justifiability for our incorrect actions. Much like some lean all the way to hyper-Calvinism and being “elect” despite any actions and/or beliefs (i.e. G-d will save whomever He wants, and had determined who He would save before they were even created).

And, once again... my mind is racing today so I hope the above makes sense (such is the plight of being both a mild schizophrenic and bipolar type II).

[CrimsonKairos]

Shoot Dr. Stuess, if this is what you sound like when you're not on top of your game, you're a blessed man.

Your points are excellent, particularly about the goldfish analogy.

It'd be like someone making a car with bad alignment, and then accusing the car of misbehaving when it runs off the road due to its bad alignment.

If ex nihilo is correct doctrine, and if there was no pre-existence, and if God literally created all beings out of nothing, then God is responsible for everyone's actions. Even if you argue, "Yeah, but Satan tempts us to do what God doesn't want us to do and that's not God's fault," you still have to ask, "Yeah, but who made us capable of succumbing to those temptations? Yep, God did." It would all flow back to Him.

[Adomini22]

Ah, I see your point. Well................. the only thing that jumps to my mind, is that in the beginning, there was no predisposition. We were the same at some beginning point, whether we be intelligences or otherwise. we are only different due to our choices. Am I explaining this correctly?

[CrimsonKairos]

We were the same at some beginning point, whether we be intelligences or otherwise. we are only different due to our choices. Am I explaining this correctly?

But according to most Christians, God didn't create us all equal in our ability to resist sin. If we have weaknesses, God placed them in us. He made us, and therefore our weaknesses are God-given.

If God created all of us equal in terms of ability to resist temptation and follow His words, then what explains why one person obeys God and another person disobeys God? It has to come back to the fact that God made them and hence their disposition to sin or obey is His doing.

UNLESS....unless we all existed as spirit beings before our mortal birth, and in that stage of existence acquired our disposition to obey or disobey, which we then carry with us into mortality.

[Doctor Steuss]

Shoot Dr. Stuess, if this is what you sound like when you're not on top of your game, you're a blessed man.

Your points are excellent, particularly about the goldfish analogy.

It'd be like someone making a car with bad alignment, and then accusing the car of misbehaving when it runs off the road due to its bad alignment.

You have no idea how much the above means to me. I get really self-conscious on days like this. I usually tend to shy away from dialogue with people when my mind is going off like a fourth of July spectacular, but today I decided to throw caution to the wind.

Thank you so much CK. If you only knew how much this means on a day like today.

If ex nihilo is correct doctrine, and if there was no pre-existence, and if God literally created all beings out of nothing, then God is responsible for everyone's actions. Even if you argue, "Yeah, but Satan tempts us to do what God doesn't want us to do and that's not God's fault," you still have to ask, "Yeah, but who made us capable of succumbing to those temptations? Yep, God did." It would all flow back to Him.

Not only is there the potential problem of "who made us capable..." but the larger conundrum is:

Who created Satan in the first place (and created the way that he did)? This is another problem as angels (which I believe most in the ex nihilo crowd think Satan is [i.e. a fallen angel]) didn't need to have the ability to rebel against G-d any more than we do. Satan could have conceptually been created much differently (i.e. he could have been another Michael).

[Dr T]

Thanks Dr. S.,

I do believe that God created out of nothing (ex-nihilo) and that he allowed or our agency (ability to act). I hear what you are saying about being flawed and expecting perfection not being a possibility. I agree. However, I'd have to think that God, in his ultimate wisdom and perfection, must have a greater plan and justification for his creation. Perhaps, it is a basic premise that because of our finite and fallen state makes us really dependent on him and the sacrifice of Jesus. If we were perfect, without blemish, then I also don't think that we would actually be free. We would be bound to compliance and therefore not really have an option for free action. I God did not create ex-nihilo and "arranged eternally existing matter" how would that change your argument? Thanks for your thoughts sir. :)

[CrimsonKairos]

Thank you so much CK. If you only knew how much this means on a day like today.

I struggle with a chemical deficiency of my own, perhaps not the same as your situation, but even so I know how frustrating it is to have "off" days. Still, I haven't noticed a disparity between your "normal" comments and your posts today. You rock, bro. B)

...the larger conundrum is:

Who created Satan in the first place (and created the way that he did)?

Good point.

If we were perfect, without blemish, then I also don't think that we would actually be free. We would be bound to compliance and therefore not really have an option for free action.

So Jesus--being perfect--wasn't free to choose what he did and said?

He was just a divine robot?

[Adomini22]

Ck is right about the pre-existence thing. Most christian churches dont believe that as mormons do. Correct. God didnt snap his fingers and wham, we existed as we are. I dont believe that. I believe we all came from the same source,.... another analogy........... babies. All were the same (perse) as in being innocent when we were born. Then thru choices, we are who we are today. Same when we were created. same thing...

[CrimsonKairos]

Interestingly, LDS theology avoids the whole "God is responsible for our sins" quandary because we believe that our spirit birth was just like our physical birth. With physical birth, our pre-existing spirit is joined to a physical body. Likewise, with our spirit birth, our pre-existing conscious or "intelligence" as the D&C says, is joined with a spirit body.

LDS don't believe God created "us" at all...just clothed us with a spirit body and then later, made it possible for our spirit body to be clothed in a physical body..

[Doctor Steuss]

Thanks Dr. S.,

I do believe that God created out of nothing (ex-nihilo) and that he allowed or our agency (ability to act). I hear what you are saying about being flawed and expecting perfection not being a possibility. I agree. However, I'd have to think that God, in his ultimate wisdom and perfection, must have a greater plan and justification for his creation. Perhaps, it is a basic premise that because of our finite and fallen state makes us really dependent on him and the sacrifice of Jesus. If we were perfect, without blemish, then I also don't think that we would actually be free. We would be bound to compliance and therefore not really have an option for free action. I God did not create ex-nihilo and "arranged eternally existing matter" how would that change your argument? Thanks for your thoughts sir. :)

I won't get to the nitty-gritty as I'm having increasing trouble getting my brain to co-operate. But, hopefully this will help to line-up some of my potential comments when I respond to your question later.

In the LDS paradigm (as I understand it), agency was something we had by our very nature, and was not something that G-d necessarily “chose” for us. Here is what has made me come to this conclusion. In the “war in heaven,” we chose whose plan we were going to follow (that of Christ and G-d, or that of Satan) -- this tends to make me think that “choice” was something we had by very nature. I don’t think Satan’s plan was to necessarily rid us of agency all-together, but to remove it during our mortal “probation” thusly guaranteeing that all would return to heaven (and most likely it would have greatly diminished the growth opportunities that are provided by our ability to choose while here).

Also, your thoughts that G-d is the ultimate wisdom, etc., I think this is an acceptable way of looking at the potential problems as this is ultimately the way I admittedly view some things within my own belief system.

As to how creation (read: “formation”) from pre-existent matter would change my argument... do you mind clarifying what aspect of my argument you’re wondering would change?

[edited for clarity... hopefully]

[shanstress70]

I agree with you CK. It is not God's fault, it's ours. Sin.

I don't think it's anyone's fault. I think it's great that He gave us the ability to discuss such things with each other, and to respect others' beliefs. If He wanted us to all believe the same thing, He would have left no doubt.

...but since I don't buy ex-nihilo and since most people I know who claim "God made them that way" don't even know what ex-nihilo is...it's usually just a cheap way to get off the hook for unacceptable behavior.

That sounded kind of arrogant, CK. Yes, I do know what ex-nihilo is... although I don't pretend to be a philosopher and have the subject mastered.

[Dr T]

Thank you again, Dr. S.,

As stated in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo I've only heard it talked about in creation-not related to the idea that God made us flawed and therefore, it is his fault that "we are the way we are." Since I think you are saying, "God made man flauwed/not perfect" and therefore sets us up to fail yet requires perfection, and connecting the ex nihilio idea, I'm confused. Those seem like different ideas. So my question is, how would it be different (in any way) it he created nonex-nihilo (if that's a word).

Thank you

[the Ogre]

. . . You rock, bro. B) . . .

So is that an ex-nihilo rock or an evolved rock? Or is it just a rock with out any one caring how it got there since questions like that have nothing to do with one's salvation and is just a red-herring or a way of wagging-the-dog.

Aaron the Ogre

[Adomini22]

Aaron the Ogre......... rock on, bro.

[Alaskagain]

(emphasis yours)

It is not a matter of changing my mind. I cannot believe in something I do not believe in.

. . .

Again, this was not a decision I made. There was a journey involved. At the end of that journey was a belief system that does not include any god, not because I choose not to believe in a god, but because it does not make sense to me, and because it is impossible to me that it could exist.

But you did change your mind, and it was a decision you made. Everyone has a choice to believe or not believe anything - whether 2 + 2 =4; whether Jesus is the Christ; whether God exists. To say anything else is sheer rationalization.

Oh, and apologies for not responding sooner; those pesky depositions took more time than expected.

. . . I believe that G-d will not judge us by LDS standards...he will judge us based on out hearts...what we knew and what we did with that knowledge... he said: To whom much is given, much is required....

I really do appreciate the efforts of the Christians in wanting to help me and Elphie, and others not to be damned, and am sorry that, at the moment at least, we have doubts that your fears are unfounded.

I believe that God will judge LDS by LDS standards, and Jews by Jewish standards, and Baptists by Baptist standards, etc. Each according to their knowledge and understanding, and for what is truly in our hearts. Only HE knows that.

[Iggy]

I believe that God will judge LDS by LDS standards, and Jews by Jewish standards, and Baptists by Baptist standards, etc. Each according to their knowledge and understanding, and for what is truly in our hearts. Only HE knows that.

Amen

[CrimsonKairos]

That sounded kind of arrogant, CK. Yes, I do know what ex-nihilo is... although I don't pretend to be a philosopher and have the subject mastered.

I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that, shan. Sorry if you thought I was mocking your point of view. In case you didn't know, I like ya. :)

I believe that God will judge LDS by LDS standards, and Jews by Jewish standards, and Baptists by Baptist standards, etc. Each according to their knowledge and understanding, and for what is truly in our hearts.

Sounds nice, but the fact is the "LDS standards" are God's standards, and they existed long before 1830. Everyone will be taught the "LDS standards," and hence, everyone will be judged according to the "LDS standards," a.k.a. God's standards.

[Elphaba]

But you did change your mind, and it was a decision you made. Everyone has a choice to believe or not believe anything - whether 2 + 2 =4; whether Jesus is the Christ; whether God exists. To say anything else is sheer rationalization.

I see. So tell me, when did you decide not to believe in the Easter Bunny any longer (assuming you did)?

Oh, and apologies for not responding sooner; those pesky depositions took more time than expected.

Somebody suing you?

Elphaba

[the Ogre]

I see. So tell me, when did you decide not to believe in the Bunny Rabbit any longer (assuming you did)?

Do you equate a belief in G-d with that of Bunny Rabbits?

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

I see. So tell me, when did you decide not to believe in the Bunny Rabbit any longer (assuming you did)?

Do you equate a belief in G-d with that of Bunny Rabbits?Thank you for catching my error. I have gone back and changed it to Easter Bunny.

And yes, I do. I have talked about it in this thread. I am an agnostic, and do not believe in any god as defined by any religion or religious text. They are all human myths to me.

Elphaba

[the Ogre]

They are all human myths to me.

Then everyone on this site, and the thousands living around you are deluded? Maybe I am? I believe it is possible to be fair in one's speech regarding the marginalized. I come to this belief through reason and careful consideration. I also come to my religious beliefs through reason and careful consideration. It is human to seek after the mysterious and unattainable through reason and careful consideration. Maybe my delusion extends to the human myths of reason and careful consideration.

Maybe my beliefs are as solid and authentic-looking as plastic home siding or bubble-gum wrapping. Maybe I am okay with being unreasonable. I don't have to believe in G-d based on any human understanding. In fact I probably should not and by such I should then try to explain the mysterious and unattainable through unreason, unlogic, delusion, and self-deception if it means denying that which has proven as dangerous to society on the fringe as has human understanding, logic, common-sense and philosophy.

Maybe I should accept both unreason and reason. They are obviously both true if I say I have a testimony of the existence of G-d by reason and careful consideration and by personal witness and emotional connection. My nihilism is extended only to the philosophies of men and humanity and obvious, self-admitting mythology. I have experienced far too much of G-d and deity to be able to deny my religion.

[Alaskagain]

[in response to Elphaba's post #120]

When I first entered this thread back at post #49, I was doing so in a sincere effort to help you and others on this thread.

My goal was to determine:

1) whether you actually were offended (or upset, use whatever term you like);

2) if so, to identify what specifically offended or upset you

3) once identified, to address each particular issue.

In subsequent posts, you responded evasively, with generalizations of your character traits, and (see post #51), twisted to inanity the intended meaning of my question (see post #54), and then accused me of playing word games (again, post #54). You also insinuated that I have limited intellectual means and do not have the ability to belong to a learned profession. (#58 and #120).

And yet in post #15, you stated that you believed you could live by the Golden Rule, and that it was, in fact, your "religion". I know you will have a way of reconciling that statement to your actions.

And to think, I actually welcomed you back.

I am now in the John Doe club.

[StrawberryFields]

The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral principle found in virtually all major religions and cultures, which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways,

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the lord." — Torah Leviticus 19:18

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus (c. 5 B.C. - A.D. 32 ) in the Gospels, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31, Luke 10:27

"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the lord your God." — Torah Leviticus 19:33-34

"This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you." — Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 B.C.)

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 B.C.)

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 B.C. - A.D. 10)

"None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." — Muhammad (c. A.D. 571 - 632), Hadith 13 of al-Nawawi's Forty Hadith.

Interpretation

The rule is meaningless without identifying the recipient and the situation. Otherwise, a depressed person who wishes to be killed would be morally obligated to kill others. It has to include an attempt to put yourself in the recipient's shoes and evaluate how you would wish to be treated if you were in their situation. Another way to rewrite the rule would be "treat others as you would like to be treated, if you were them."

The ethic of reciprocity, or Golden Rule of ethics can further be defined in terms of what it is not.

THIS GOES ON AND ON CHECK OUT THE LINK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity