The Road to Hell is Paved with Bad Intentions

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Have you ever intended to do something but didn’t get around to doing the thing you intended to do? 

Sure, there are a few. But, almost always in those few times I have committed some action towards that goal.

Everything we do everyday is the playing out and manifestation of intentions. I woke up this, morning and had intentions of eating cereal- so I ate cereal. Then I had intentions to fill my water bottle- so I filled my water bottle. Then I had intentions of heading to work- so I headed to work. Day in, day out, we fulfill or work towards our true intentions. We may not think they are intentions but everything we do action wise is carrying out intentions. Sometimes midstream we change or modify intentions but nevertheless they are still intentions. Nobody who is not a slave in chains walks through life and lives contrary to their intentions. We live according to our intentions. 

Speaking of future projects people often speak in the sense of "I intend to do this or that at some future date". But, those aren't really intentions, true intentions, until one starts working towards it. I mean really- I could easily say I intend to own a Duesenberg someday and then donate it for charity. I could also say I intend to but an island in the Bahamas someday and build a dream house on it. But, those things are just dreams, not a true reality unless I am actually making an earnest and viable plan to make it happen. This is where most people lie to their own reality. They aren't truly intentions but mere over ambitious dreamings. 

Everyday we carry out hundreds of intentions. If we keep putting something off or avoiding it it truly can be said that our true intentions is really to not do it but do something else instead. Once we actually set forth to face that dragon and conquer it's not really a real intention. We are only capable to freely carry out true intentions. We just get confused and lie to ourselves when we know what we should be doing but our true intentions carry or lead us in a different direction. We must truly ask ourselves everyday when we fail to perform where our true intentions really lay. Then we are honest with ourselves and realize our true intentions of our heart and where we are really at, not where we think we are.

[Jersey Boy]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Sure, there are a few. But, almost always in those few times I have committed some action towards that goal.

Everything we do everyday is the playing out and manifestation of intentions. I woke up this, morning and had intentions of eating cereal- so I ate cereal. Then I had intentions to fill my water bottle- so I filled my water bottle. Then I had intentions of heading to work- so I headed to work. Day in, day out, we fulfill or work towards our true intentions. We may not think they are intentions but everything we do action wise is carrying out intentions. Sometimes midstream we change or modify intentions but nevertheless they are still intentions. Nobody who is not a slave in chains walks through life and lives contrary to their intentions. We live according to our intentions. 

Speaking of future projects people often speak in the sense of "I intend to do this or that at some future date". But, those aren't really intentions, true intentions, until one starts working towards it. I mean really- I could easily say I intend to own a Duesenberg someday and then donate it for charity. I could also say I intend to but an island in the Bahamas someday and build a dream house on it. But, those things are just dreams, not a true reality unless I am actually making an earnest and viable plan to make it happen. This is where most people lie to their own reality. They aren't truly intentions but mere over ambitious dreamings. 

Everyday we carry out hundreds of intentions. If we keep putting something off or avoiding it it truly can be said that our true intentions is really to not do it but do something else instead. Once we actually set forth to face that dragon and conquer it's not really a real intention. We are only capable to freely carry out true intentions. We just get confused and lie to ourselves when we know what we should be doing but our true intentions carry or lead us in a different direction. We must truly ask ourselves everyday when we fail to perform where our true intentions really lay. Then we are honest with ourselves and realize our true intentions of our heart and where we are really at, not where we think we are.

I’ve noticed there’s a certain interesting rigidity in your thought process that doesn’t allow for as much subtlety and nuance as most people do. A perfect example of this is intellectual inflexibility is seen in this attempt of yours to destroy the validity of an old saying that has a very wise and important point to make. But because you seem to be able to define the expression “good intentions” in only one theologically absolutist way, you’re missing the whole point. The word irony exists in the English language for a reason, but because you see things in such absolutist terms you’re unable to see the forest for the rhetorical trees.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I’ve noticed there’s a certain interesting rigidity in your thought process that doesn’t allow for as much subtlety and nuance as most people do. A perfect example of this is intellectual inflexibility is seen in this attempt of yours to destroy the validity of an old saying that has a very wise and important point to make. But because you seem to be able to define the expression “good intentions” in only one theologically absolutist way, you’re missing the whole point. The word irony exists in the English language for a reason, but because you see things in such absolutist terms you’re unable to see the forest for the rhetorical trees.

I'm calling it out because it's a lie, a deception. I was reading in the scriptures last night and came across this verse from Alma-

40 For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil. (Alma 5:40)

As this applies to intentions, no good intentions comes from the devil just as no bad intentions come from God. The Book of Mormon speaks of "works" and "fruits". Works and fruits are the results of intentions. Thus, it is impossible to have a result of bad works or bad fruit from good intentions. If one ends up with evil works or bad fruit it's because the intentions were from the devil and we're bad to begin with.

For instance, lets say I had the good intention of cleaning my neighbors house who is handicapped. While I was cleaning I found a hundred dollars and decided to pocket it. In the end the result was evil on my part for stealing. But, the intention of cleaning is different or separate from my intention to steal. So, whereas one fruit was good another was evil. The bad intention wasn't made possible by the good intention, the bad intention always exists if I give into it anywhere along the way. Good comes from God and evil comes from the devil. No good intentions will ever lead one to bring forth evil and corrupt fruit.

[Jersey Boy]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm calling it out because it's a lie, a deception. I was reading in the scriptures last night and came across this verse from Alma-

40 For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil. (Alma 5:40)

As this applies to intentions, no good intentions comes from the devil just as no bad intentions come from God. The Book of Mormon speaks of "works" and "fruits". Works and fruits are the results of intentions. Thus, it is impossible to have a result of bad works or bad fruit from good intentions. If one ends up with evil works or bad fruit it's because the intentions were from the devil and we're bad to begin with.

For instance, lets say I had the good intention of cleaning my neighbors house who is handicapped. While I was cleaning I found a hundred dollars and decided to pocket it. In the end the result was evil on my part for stealing. But, the intention of cleaning is different or separate from my intention to steal. So, whereas one fruit was good another was evil. The bad intention wasn't made possible by the good intention, the bad intention always exists if I give into it anywhere along the way. Good comes from God and evil comes from the devil. No good intentions will ever lead one to bring forth evil and corrupt fruit.

This post of yours is a perfect example of what I mean by intellectual rigidity. The old saying under discussion is deliberately meant to be understood in a paradoxical/ironic way for a reason — to have a greater impact upon the human mind.  For example, there are many well-intended people who want to have government funded universal healthcare for all. These same people will often quote Jesus Christ’s commandments in the Bible where he teaches that those who are able to do so need to take care of the temporal needs of the poor. So from the top of their heads to the souls of their feet these people are as certain as anyone can be that socialized medicine is the right thing to do and that their intentions are perfectly good and pure.

Meanwhile many LDS Church leaders have, throughout the years, warned us of the dangers of socialized medicine because it’s s very important and necessary step in Karl Marx’s list of things that need to be accomplished in order to destroy a nation’s freedom and establish a brutal communist slavestate. So what we learn from this is that what’s good in one situation isn’t necessarily always going to be the right thing to do in another. So in the above example people who are 100% percent convinced they are right about wanting to establish universal healthcare, because even Jesus Christ says it’s the right thing to do, are actually engaged in something that only seems like the right thing to do.

I believe it’s this same intellectual rigidity that causes you to mistakenly believe there aren’t assigned degrees of glory in the resurrection, even though the three degrees of post-resurrection glory is an official and fully accepted doctrine of the Church that’s frequently taught as absolute truth by the General Authorities. It would be interesting to know why and how one comes to think in such an inflexible absolutist manner.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

This post of yours is a perfect example of what I mean by intellectual rigidity. The old saying under discussion is deliberately meant to be understood in a paradoxical/ironic way for a reason — to have a greater impact upon the human mind.  For example, there are many well-intended people who want to have government funded universal healthcare for all. These same people will often quote Jesus Christ’s commandments in the Bible where he teaches that those who are able to do so need to take care of the temporal needs of the poor. So from the top of their heads to the souls of their feet these people are as certain as anyone can be that socialized medicine is the right thing to do and that their intentions are perfectly good and pure.

Meanwhile many LDS Church leaders have, throughout the years, warned us of the dangers of socialized medicine because it’s s very important and necessary step in Karl Marx’s list of things that need to be accomplished in order to destroy a nation’s freedom and establish a brutal communist slavestate. So what we learn from this is that what’s good in one situation isn’t necessarily always going to be the right thing to do in another. So in the above example people who are 100% percent convinced they are right about wanting to establish universal healthcare, because even Jesus Christ says it’s the right thing to do, are actually engaged in something that only seems like the right thing to do.

I believe it’s this same intellectual rigidity that causes you to mistakenly believe there aren’t assigned degrees of glory in the resurrection, even though the three degrees of post-resurrection glory is an official and fully accepted doctrine of the Church that’s frequently taught as absolute truth by the General Authorities. It would be interesting to know why and how one comes to think in such an inflexible absolutist manner.

I can assure you that socialized medicine isnt evil. Satan doesnt care about the sick, poor, destitute in society. He would rather see them suffer. This is such a weak argument. In fact the argument completely fails. Almost all infastructure in society is publicly funded through channels of the government. Perhaps you believe that roads and bridges are the very work of the devil.

[Jersey Boy]

23 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I can assure you that socialized medicine isnt evil. Satan doesnt care about the sick, poor, destitute in society. He would rather see them suffer. This is such a weak argument. In fact the argument completely fails. Almost all infastructure in society is publicly funded through channels of the government. Perhaps you believe that roads and bridges are the very work of the devil.

I assure you it is evil. Anything the government fully pays for the government absolutely controls, but under the US Constitution — the system of earthly government the Lord himself approves for the governance of all humanity — the people are supposed to have sovereign control over their own healthcare, not distant government bureaucrats who mechanically administer within a system that asserts abominations, like partial-birth, late-term abortion, are morally acceptable. Under the US Constitutional system of true freedom, the people themselves are supposed to help the poor through private charities and service initiatives. I now realize it makes sense that a socialist member of the Church would naturally want to reject the doctrine of three degrees of glory.

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Anddenex]

On 7/24/2018 at 7:57 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Saving whales is a separate act from rejecting Christ. It's two separate acts. Put another way- saving whales and the desire to do good doesn't lead one to reject Christ. No good fruits come from Satan.

Well, yes, obviously rejecting Christ and saving whales are two separate choices. The quote is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The "good intentions" is "saving whales. People have good intentions, and many Atheists will tell you their lives are filled with good. They have good desires to help people, to serve people, and to do good, and yet they reject Christ.

This is now switching the goal posts, "No good fruits come from Satan." The quote isn't talking about "good fruit" coming from Satan. The quote is how people can have good intentions while still finding themselves on the path to hell.

Which do you want to discuss: 1) The road to hell is paved by good intentions, or 2) No good fruits come from Satan?

[Rob Osborn]

12 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I assure you it is evil. Anything the government fully pays for the government absolutely controls, but under the US Constitution — the system of earthly government the Lord himself approves for the governance of all humanity — the people are supposed to have sovereign control over their own healthcare, not distant government bureaucrats who mechanically administer within a system that asserts abominations, like partial-birth, late-term abortion, are morally acceptable. Under the US Constitutional system of true freedom, the people themselves are supposed to help the poor through private charities and service initiatives. I now realize it makes sense that a socialist member of the Church would naturally want to reject the doctrine of three degrees of glory.

 

I'm definitely not a socialist. Social programs of the government are not evil. Since when did Satan come along saying- "you know what we need- a program to help alleviate the poor, the sick, the afflicted?" Never! And he never will.

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Well, yes, obviously rejecting Christ and saving whales are two separate choices. The quote is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The "good intentions" is "saving whales. People have good intentions, and many Atheists will tell you their lives are filled with good. They have good desires to help people, to serve people, and to do good, and yet they reject Christ.

This is now switching the goal posts, "No good fruits come from Satan." The quote isn't talking about "good fruit" coming from Satan. The quote is how people can have good intentions while still finding themselves on the path to hell.

Which do you want to discuss: 1) The road to hell is paved by good intentions, or 2) No good fruits come from Satan?

I can guarantee you that a person who actively serves others, love others, and do "good" cannot stay atheist. I know some atheists and every single one of them are selfish, do not love and serve others with a genuine love and generally don't do good. Good fruit doesn't come from corrupt trees. The person you describe as having literally the light of Christ in their countenances because of their good works are not atheists. Atheism and selfishness go hand in hand, that's a fact.

[person0]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

. . . Since when did Satan come along saying- "you know what we need- a program to help enslave alleviate the poor, the sick, the afflicted by first helping them and then making them dependent on worldly powers?"

That corrected version sounds exactly like something he might say.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, person0 said:

That corrected version sounds exactly like something he might say.

Satan's not helping no poor or sick people. He doesn't like these people to get any help whatsoever.

[Rob Osborn]

As one gets into the more wicked and corrupt contries and governments we see the growing divide with the poor being poorer and a larger disregard to help alleviate the poor, sick, afflicted, etc. Satan loves to starve the poor and grind on them until they are dead or diseased. 

[person0]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

As one gets into the more wicked and corrupt contries and governments we see the growing divide with the poor being poorer and a larger disregard to help alleviate the poor, sick, afflicted, etc. Satan loves to starve the poor and grind on them until they are dead or diseased. 

I disagree.  Satan's #1 goal is the spiritual destruction of mankind.  I believe he will do anything he thinks will help to achieve that goal.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

I disagree.  Satan's #1 goal is the spiritual destruction of mankind.  I believe he will do anything he thinks will help to achieve that goal.

So, according to your thoughts, the wickedest countries have the best healthcare system for their poor. Good luck with finding that reality.

[Guest Godless]

20 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I assure you it is evil. Anything the government fully pays for the government absolutely controls, but under the US Constitution — the system of earthly government the Lord himself approves for the governance of all humanity — the people are supposed to have sovereign control over their own healthcare, not distant government bureaucrats who mechanically administer within a system that asserts abominations, like partial-birth, late-term abortion, are morally acceptable. Under the US Constitutional system of true freedom, the people themselves are supposed to help the poor through private charities and service initiatives. I now realize it makes sense that a socialist member of the Church would naturally want to reject the doctrine of three degrees of glory.

 

The two bolded statements contradict each other. Regulating and restricting the types of health services a woman can receive is the exact opposite of giving them "sovereign control over their own healthcare". And btw, the two types of abortions you mentioned are performed exclusively out of medical necessity. Removing those options literally puts womens' lives at risk. 

[Guest Godless]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Atheism and selfishness go hand in hand, that's a fact.

It's no more of a fact than to say that Christianity and charity/selflessness go hand in hand. Perhaps that's supposed to be the case, but I find it not to be quite often. The fact that you can't wrap your head around the idea of charitable unbelievers does not diminish their works. There are good (and yes, plenty of bad) people in all religious backgrounds, whether they be Christian, atheist, Muslim, or Mormon. 

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Godless said:

The two bolded statements contradict each other. Regulating and restricting the types of health services a woman can receive is the exact opposite of giving them "sovereign control over their own healthcare". And btw, the two types of abortions you mentioned are performed exclusively out of medical necessity. Removing those options literally puts womens' lives at risk. 

I'm pro choice, but partial brith abortion of a live fetus makes me cringe, even if it's to save the mothers life. Yes, it's rare, but it's still too close to infanticide for me. 

[Guest Godless]

Just now, MormonGator said:

I'm pro choice, but partial brith abortion of a live fetus makes me cringe, even if it's to save the mothers life. Yes, it's rare, but it's still too close to infanticide for me. 

Imagine being a mother who wants to have that baby and having that procedure performed to save your own life. It's an absolutely heartbreaking thing to think about, but sometimes it's necessary. The key detail is that the woman has a choice. My own mother chose not to have a late-term abortion when complications arose with my youngest brother, and we came very close to losing both of them. She chose that risk though. It wasn't forced on her, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

 but sometimes it's necessary

Perhaps. I'm doubtful that it's "necessary" in our culture today with all the medical advances. I just hope that it's a matter of life and death and not just a matter of convenience on the side of the mother. 

Partial birth abortion is an incredibly complex issue. I know of many other pro choicers like me who have real problems with it. 

[Anddenex]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I can guarantee you that a person who actively serves others, love others, and do "good" cannot stay atheist. I know some atheists and every single one of them are selfish, do not love and serve others with a genuine love and generally don't do good. Good fruit doesn't come from corrupt trees. The person you describe as having literally the light of Christ in their countenances because of their good works are not atheists. Atheism and selfishness go hand in hand, that's a fact.

I can guarantee you that a person who actively serves others, love others, and do "good" cannot stay atheist.

I would like to think this is true; however, the concept of "moral agency" tells me otherwise. Our gift from our Father in heaven let's us know that people can choose to persue good things without choosing him. If not, it would destroy the agency of men.

I know some atheists and every single one of them are selfish, do not love and serve others with a genuine love and generally don't do good.

We have different experiences then of people who are atheist. Overall, INMO, the concept of atheism is a selfish state (a law unto themselves); however, this doesn't mean that every act performed or accomplished by an atheist is selfish. Atheist's can love people (a good thing), and I have seen fiercely loyal atheists to their marriage. This is a good thing and requires more than mere selfish desires to keep the marriage alive and thriving.

My personal experience is that many atheist serve and have genuine love for those they truly care for, especially those in their close circle of friends. I don't think for a minute when a friend atheist visits their friend dying of cancer in the hospital that it is from a selfish point of view. I am sure its root is love, and to love is good and godly. I would not say their compassion and love is a Godly desire (which is the irony in this life when an atheist meets their creator and they realize all their good, all their love and compassion they ever felt were gifts from the God they rejected).

The rain falls on the just and the unjust, while the sun shines on the just and the unjust. God blesses atheists with genuine love and service when they themselves honor the law that brings this blessing, even if they do not acknowledge the hand that gave it to them.

The person you describe as having literally the light of Christ in their countenances because of their good works are not atheists.

My personal experience tells me otherwise. All children of our Father in heaven have been blessed with a spiritual gift (if not two or three). Atheists, like all others, have been given gifts from God by which they are able to act with. Their religion or lack of religion does not dictate their service to be less than a believing Mormon.

Atheism and selfishness go hand in hand, that's a fact.

Anytime we seek to glorify ourselves (believer or non-believer), as we act in this world, is selfishness. I would say an atheist is more likely to glorify themselves; although, this doesn't mean they go hand in hand. An atheist is able to take no thought for themselves and thus genuinely server others. In this case, we disagree.

[person0]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, according to your thoughts, the wickedest countries have the best healthcare system for their poor. Good luck with finding that reality.

No, according to my thoughts, Satan will do anything to drag you in and bind you, then he will do whatever he wants with you.  Providing you [x] thing that you may need or want in exchange for your agency is pretty much how he has always operated.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

It's no more of a fact than to say that Christianity and charity/selflessness go hand in hand. Perhaps that's supposed to be the case, but I find it not to be quite often. The fact that you can't wrap your head around the idea of charitable unbelievers does not diminish their works. There are good (and yes, plenty of bad) people in all religious backgrounds, whether they be Christian, atheist, Muslim, or Mormon. 

So, do you think hell is full of charitable folks?

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I can guarantee you that a person who actively serves others, love others, and do "good" cannot stay atheist.

I would like to think this is true; however, the concept of "moral agency" tells me otherwise. Our gift from our Father in heaven let's us know that people can choose to persue good things without choosing him. If not, it would destroy the agency of men.

I know some atheists and every single one of them are selfish, do not love and serve others with a genuine love and generally don't do good.

We have different experiences then of people who are atheist. Overall, INMO, the concept of atheism is a selfish state (a law unto themselves); however, this doesn't mean that every act performed or accomplished by an atheist is selfish. Atheist's can love people (a good thing), and I have seen fiercely loyal atheists to their marriage. This is a good thing and requires more than mere selfish desires to keep the marriage alive and thriving.

My personal experience is that many atheist serve and have genuine love for those they truly care for, especially those in their close circle of friends. I don't think for a minute when a friend atheist visits their friend dying of cancer in the hospital that it is from a selfish point of view. I am sure its root is love, and to love is good and godly. I would not say their compassion and love is a Godly desire (which is the irony in this life when an atheist meets their creator and they realize all their good, all their love and compassion they ever felt were gifts from the God they rejected).

The rain falls on the just and the unjust, while the sun shines on the just and the unjust. God blesses atheists with genuine love and service when they themselves honor the law that brings this blessing, even if they do not acknowledge the hand that gave it to them.

The person you describe as having literally the light of Christ in their countenances because of their good works are not atheists.

My personal experience tells me otherwise. All children of our Father in heaven have been blessed with a spiritual gift (if not two or three). Atheists, like all others, have been given gifts from God by which they are able to act with. Their religion or lack of religion does not dictate their service to be less than a believing Mormon.

Atheism and selfishness go hand in hand, that's a fact.

Anytime we seek to glorify ourselves (believer or non-believer), as we act in this world, is selfishness. I would say an atheist is more likely to glorify themselves; although, this doesn't mean they go hand in hand. An atheist is able to take no thought for themselves and thus genuinely server others. In this case, we disagree.

I would bet that there aren't atheists in heaven while hell is full of them. At some point in our journey we either have to gravitate to the light or stay in darkness. Those whose works are good are going to gravitate to the light. Those who wish to remain in darkness will, at some point, produce only corrupt fruit.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, person0 said:

No, according to my thoughts, Satan will do anything to drag you in and bind you, then he will do whatever he wants with you.  Providing you [x] thing that you may need or want in exchange for your agency is pretty much how he has always operated.

Social healthcare doesn't remove agency. That's a weak argument. Satan destroys agency by tempting us and getting us trapped in sin

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, do you think hell is full of charitable folks?

If Christianity is correct, then yes, which is why Christianity is a tough pill to swallow for people like me. 

If Mormonism is correct, then we're all getting a slice of heaven, so to speak. The believers will receive the higher exaltation, but I was always taught that the other realms of heaven would reward the good in their own way. Personally, I don't believe that either.

As it turns out, I don't believe in heaven and hell. I believe that the survival of our society depends on our capacity for good. I don't feel that I need a reward/punishment structure to encourage being a good person. But even for those who do, this mortal life provides ample reward for being good and consequences for being bad. Religion doesn't own morality. It's inside all of us, and it's up to us to find and unlock our best moral selves. Not everyone succeeds. There are some pretty deplorable people from all religious backgrounds, but a lot of good ones too. I think it has less to do with the "light of Christ" and more to do with a human desire to make the world better for those who come after us.