Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But if a painless option was available, you would've picked it, right?
This much I agree with... somewhat. I personally value challenge (and actually go out of my way to take on certain challenges), but I don't think that every challenging situation is a good one. A bit of suffering may all right when it results in personal growth, but not all suffering is growth-enducing. I think that quite a bit of the negative experience that people encounter really is pointless and that the world would be a better place if it could be avoided.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just missing your point.
I just don't see how God's having chosen to create the universe differently than you think He should makes him omnipotent. I know that evil and suffering exist. What I don't understand is how you can insist that they serve no purpose.
Some people are better than others at turning their trials into a learning experience. Personally, I suck at it. Here's an example of someone who has suffered more than most of us can imagine and he has come out of the whole thing (actually, it's not over for him yet). This young man's mother is a friend of mine.
Yes. Are you saying there are degrees of perfect? Is there an "absolute" perfect and a "less than absolute" perfect? Is there a "paradigm" of perfect and a "less than ultimate" perfect? Not that I'm aware of. Perfect either is or it isn't. Kind of like pregnant.
LOL. Well that's a novel way of looking at it! Thanks for your input.
Again, I have no comment on zadok's post per se. To me, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "better" because I am firmly convinced that an apostasy did take place fairly soon after Christ's Apostles died and that Catholicism does not teach the same doctrines Christ and His Apostles taught. I don't believe those doctrines are found in Protestantism either, since (1) Protestantism has so many core doctrines (e.g. the Trinity, etc.) in common with Catholicism and (2) I believe the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles is an essential component of His Church. The Protestants don't even claim to hold apostolic authority. So, either Christ's Church ceased to exist and continues not to exist or else it was restored. I happen to believe it was restored, and a big reason why I do is that so many of its teachings can be found in early non-biblical texts of the first and second centuries. Again, though, that's neither here nor there and I'm thinking that MSizer is probably getting just a little peeved that his thread has taken this turn.
As I've said before, your understanding of these "wildly different" doctrines is minimal at best. Everything you know about our doctrines you learned from a source exists for the sole purpose of parodying, exaggerating and misrepresenting them. If you don't understand something, and it's explained by someone who wants to make it look bad, that's likely you're going to understand it. In terms of the Church's bigotries, yes, we're guilty. We've messed up from time to time. And you know why? It's because we're human beings, no better or worse than any other human beings. As long as human beings are involved in religion, religion is going to be flawed. Finally, I don't know what "practices" you're talking about, but in the LDS Church, there is a clear line between doctrines and practices. Doctrines are eternal truths. They come from God and they don't change over time. Practices are the policies made by fallible human beings. They come and go. They don't determine what is true and what is not. Anyone who rejects true doctrines because he doesn't approve of certain practices is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Uh... okay. What does that have to do with their beliefs? Oh, never mind... that would be OFF TOPIC!
No problemo.
Actually Im saying evil and suffering do serve a purpose, but only because that is the way God designed the world. That an omnipotent God chose to design the world the way it is shows a deliberate intent; he meant for evil and suffering to exist. He is not therefore a compassionate God. But if Gods intent was for us to join him in heaven, ie a place that is synonymous with a state of no suffering, then the existence of those things serves no purpose at all. In fact it is nonsensical. For why should we need to know evil in order in order to make us fit for a place that knows no evil?
Because God doesn't believe in spoiling his children. We can see the wisdom of his plan by looking at how wise and loving humans treat their children. The foolish parent provides a safe and loving home for his children without setting conditions or creating obstacles to it; they can't appreciate it, though, because they haven't earned it and they have nothing to compare it to. The wise parent drops his children off in Tierra del Fuego with a pocket knife and a map and leaves them to find their way home. Most of them never make it home, but those who do really appreciate it when they get there. It would be unreasonable to blame the parent for the fate of the others, when -- after all -- he did give them a map and a pocket knife. It's not the parent's fault if they failed to make good use of it.
He's asking for an explanation of the Christian perspective, and therefore it's not the Bible itself but Christian interpretations of the Bible that are of interest. Considering that some parts of the Bible flatly contradict other parts, it would be impossible to arrive at a clear biblical perspective, and even if it were possible, there would be no reason to expect it to be the same as the Christian perspective.