Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?

[SlyPokerDog]

Way back in September, 2008 I saw a post on the fuge you had made about this place.

You saw a post on the what?!?

 

[crowTrobot]

You keep posting words like "obviously", "clearly", etc. etc., yet none of this discussion is obvious, nor is it clear. I'm guessing you think you're sounding smart, but you're at Level One, and this discussion is at least at Level 3.

so you think it's NOT obvious or clear that it's not god's plan in the bible for someone to kill their kids.

 

[barfo]

Heaven and Hell - Yes
Damnation for 6 year olds -No

As most of you know, I'm LDS (Mormon). From what I understand of other faiths, we have a unique view on salvation as it relates to young children.

While it is true children can be mischievous and in some instances down-right evil, Satan has no power to tempt them until they begin to become accountable. (Doctrine & Covenants 29:46-47). That means they have no reason to repent or be baptized until they reach the age of accountability. That has been determined to be 8 years old. (D&C 68:25-27) Why 8? I don’t really know; although studies have shown that that is the age at which most children really begin to understand the concept of right and wrong and are capable of making choices based on their own reasoned thoughts. At any rate, all children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom. (D&C 137:10)

It should probably also be mentioned “that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” (Article of Faith 1:2) Essentially, that means that I reject the concept of original sin. Our revelation says: “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning”—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—“and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God” (D&C 93:38)—meaning that all children start out their mortal probation in purity and innocence because of the atonement. Our revelations also say, “The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.” (Moses 6:54.)

To address other concerns expressed in this thread, additional explanation seems necessary. This issue directly relates to what happens to us when we die.

We're told several times in the scriptures that faith in Christ is essential for salvation. We also believe we have to show our faith by our works. (See James 2:17-18). One of the ways in which we do this is by following Christ's example and being baptized, but I’ll come back to that in a second.

The fall of Adam and Eve created two distinct kinds of death: spiritual and physical. Physical is obvious – we all die. Spiritual death is the separation from God we experience when we sin. Christ’s atonement unequivocally overcame the physical death through his death and resurrection. All will be resurrected regardless of their level of righteousness (whatever you consider to be righteousness).



Each individual can also be saved from spiritual death as well by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ. This faith is manifested in a life of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel and service to Christ.

When we die, our physical bodies are separated from our spirits (souls?). Our physical body is obviously discarded in whatever manner is chosen, but our spirits go to what is probably most easily described as a waiting room as they await their resurrection and final judgment. There is a separation between those who accepted the gospel and those who have not. Essentially, there’s a great deal of missionary work being done so that those who never had the opportunity or those who as of yet have rejected the gospel still have to opportunity to accept or reject Christ as their Savior. It is here that the faith in Christ requirement can be fulfilled by those who haven’t had to opportunity to accept it. (See D&C 138:30-35) This is a natural segue into the doctrine of baptism for (or in behalf of) the dead.



As I’ve already stated, baptism is a requirement for salvation in addition to faith in Christ. Baptism by proxy enables those that have died without having been baptized and no longer have physical bodies with which to be baptized (at least they don’t in their current state) to receive the necessary ordinance of baptism. This is one of the ordinances performed in LDS temples and it is done by the sealing power mentioned throughout the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. (e.g. Matt. 16:19 – “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”)

To be clear, those who die before the age of accountability do not go through this process. They are saved through Christ’s atonement unequivocally. As stated above, they are incapable of sin and therefore have no need to repent and be baptized.

As it relates to Hell, “Hell” is not weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth because of a literal burning as it seems most here have indicated that it is. Hell is the emotional pain we feel from being separated from God’s presence for eternity. It is a state of mind knowing what could have been had that person been more obedient. Our choices damn us, God doesn't. There is another thread in here where I discuss the concept of degrees of glory, so I won’t make this post any longer by including that here. Sufficient to say, while “Hell” will not be pleasant, it won’t be because those there are being physically tortured.

Interesting data. You make Mormonism seem a bit more rational than 'regular' Christianity (no original sin, no Hell for babies).
Questions: Where do you stand on mook's kill-all-the-babies question? Wouldn't I be better off avoiding all Mormon missionaries while I'm alive, then I can just choose Heaven when I get to the Great Waiting Room in the Sky? [And if I find myself in the Great Waiting Room, it would be a pretty easy choice at that point to believe]. Why bother with religion while I'm alive? Is the line in the Great Waiting Room really really long? Are the chairs uncomfortable? Are there forms to fill out?

barfo

 

[ABM]

You saw a post on the what?!?

an otherwise immaterial part of my life

 

[huevonkiller]

Where is the edge of the universe? What exists outside of the edge of the universe?

Lots of theory seems to be accepted as fact.

This is not theory though.

The expansion of the Universe is indeed occurring, and in the manner I stated.

 

[crowTrobot]

Never before witnessed, no modern day examples, and accepted as close to fact anyhow.

I guess Bigfoot exists as well, based on that logic.

The lack of understanding of the scientific method by some of you should embarrass you, but it doesn't/won't.

it's a misconception that the scientific method requires everything be repeatable or directly observable. it only requires that theories make testable predictions, which the big bang theory does quite successfully.

Hey, there was a big explosion that gave birth to the universe! Where did the materials to cause that explosion come from ... ah, nevermind. It really happened!!!

the big bang theory doesn't state that the materials of our universe came from nothing, only that matter in the universe was once quite small and compressed (possibly in the state of a singularity) and then expanded.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Yes I do. I also believe the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

 

[PapaG]

This is not theory though.

The expansion of the Universe is indeed occurring, and in the manner I stated.

Prove it, outside of a mathematical equation.

Where is the edge of the universe? Are all things equal in terms of space in that universe? How do black holes work, and what is their impact on the universe?

None of those have ever been 'proven'.

 

[PapaG]

it's a misconception that the scientific method requires everything be repeatable or directly observable. it only requires that theories make testable predictions, which the big bang theory does quite successfully.

No, it's a misconception that "science" now involves consensus and theory, instead of actually using the scientific method and the ideas of replication and repetition.

The global warming bunk science has lowered the bar in all other areas of science, outside of perhaps the medical community, where controlled trials still matter.

the big bang theory doesn't state that the materials of our universe came from nothing, only that matter in the universe was once quite small and compressed (possibly in the state of a singularity) and then expanded.

Where did those elements come from? How did they originate? Why is the word "possibly" used in anything close to scientific "fact"?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Do I believe in Heaven & Hell?

Yes.

Just ask anyone who's been married.

 

[huevonkiller]

Prove it, outside of a mathematical equation.

Where is the edge of the universe? Are all things equal in terms of space in that universe? How do black holes work, and what is their impact on the universe?

None of those have ever been 'proven'.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't need to prove an "Edge" to the universe.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/hubble.html

The expansion of the Universe has been observed and calculated, you're just randomly denying it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

When it comes to God's existence, I've always liked the maxim of, "I'd rather live as though God exists and be wrong than live as though He doesn't and be wrong."

It's risk-aversion theology, and it works for me.

 

[huevonkiller]

No, it's a misconception that "science" now involves consensus and theory, instead of actually using the scientific method and the ideas of replication and repetition.

The global warming bunk science has lowered the bar in all other areas of science, outside of perhaps the medical community, where controlled trials still matter.





Where did those elements come from? How did they originate? Why is the word "possibly" used in anything close to scientific "fact"?

There is no political agenda in Quantum mechanics and particle physics, unlike with environmentalism.

Further you're confused about some basic stuff.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Personally, I've yet to come across anything that disproves the existence of God, Heaven or Hell.

 

[huevonkiller]

Personally, I've yet to come across anything that disproves the existence of God, Heaven or Hell.

There are plenty of things that disprove the Bible though.

If anything the construction of that book was very politicized.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Personally, I've yet to come across anything that disproves the existence of God, Heaven or Hell.

To be fair, Nessie, Bigfoot and the Chupacabra have never been disproven either.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

There are plenty of things that disprove the Bible though.

Hmmm, nothing I've ever seen with credibility disproves the Bible either. I mean, I've seen people take some shots at it, and there is an element of faith to it, but nothing that flat out disproves it.

 

[huevonkiller]

Hmmm, nothing I've ever seen with credibility disproves the Bible either. I mean, I've seen people take some shots at it, and there is an element of faith to it, but nothing that flat out disproves it.

Sure there is, it contradicts itself all the time.

 

[MadeFromDust]

There are plenty of things that disprove the Bible though.

If anything the construction of that book was very politicized.

Such as? If there is I've never seen it.

PS- I'll gladly debate anyone here on the existence of God.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Sure there is, it contradicts itself all the time.

this is a very common misconception, an untrue one at that. As someone who studies the Bible and owns 8 different versions of it I can tell you that is false.

 

[barfo]

There is no political agenda in Quantum mechanics and particle physics,

Not one that you are old enough to remember, anyway.

barfo

 

[barfo]

this is a very common misconception, an untrue one at that. As someone who studies the Bible and owns 8 different versions of it I can tell you that is false.

Please explain away all of these, then.

barfo

 

[MadeFromDust]

Please explain away all of these, then.

barfo

Sure, it's something called "context". People splice Bible passages all the time for their own agendas. If you remove passages from a parable and compare it to a poetic book (which holds entirely different meanings) or a historical record it's not going to add up. Reading what's around the out-of-context passage is important when looking for Bible contradictions. I've been to this page before and many others, people don't take the time to read their Bibles to justify it for themselves. And I'm not going to spend all my time debunking so-called Bible contradictions. If you are genuinely interested then you can find the resources you need.

 

[huevonkiller]

The Bible is a Bullshit book and you do need to spend time debunking those quotes (I could still see the case made for a greater being, just that this is not the right book).

Also put them in context for me.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The Bible is a Bullshit book and you do need to spend time debunking those quotes.

Also put them in context for me.

Says you? OK. Want me to type out the entire Bible for you as well while I'm at it? Sorry, I'm not going to do your homework for you. The Bible has been unchanging for the past 2,000 years and earlier in the OT. If there were any real contradictions you'd actually hear about them, not from some atheistic websites looking to splice or skew the true meanings of the passages.

It's also funny you have a picture of Jesus in your avi, the Son of God. Sure you're not a believer?

 

[huevonkiller]

The entire Bible is Bullshit then.

You got to put in the work, son. :O

 

[barfo]

When it comes to God's existence, I've always liked the maxim of, "I'd rather live as though God exists and be wrong than live as though He doesn't and be wrong."

It's risk-aversion theology, and it works for me.

Doesn't work for me. One could better justify never getting on an airplane, or in a car, because they might crash. Or never walking down a street, because a safe or a piano might fall from an upper story window. Or never having sex because you might catch a disease. Or never doing anything at all other than cowering under the bed in hopes that no bad thing ever happens.

To misquote advice given to me by Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk, and afraid of God is no way to go through life, son." So I'm not going to be afraid of God.

barfo

 

[MadeFromDust]

The entire Bible is Bullshit then.

You got to put in the work, son. :O

I'd rather spend time debunking BS scientific theories. Can you explain how blind, dead, brainless matter can create life? How do you account for consciousness from non-consciousnesses? Can you give me an example of macro-evolution in action or any hint to it whatsoever? Can you give me evidence of man made writings or artifacts that date past 5,000 years? What is the uncaused first cause? Something has to be eternal, whether it's God or the singularity that caused the big bang. Nothingness begets nothingness. What set it into motion? How can you justify morality from a secular worldview? I can go on and on, if you can answer a few of these questions for me I'll kindly take the time to address your Bible contradictions.

As you can see I'm someone who puts very little confidence in the so-called "knowledge" of mankind. You can look through a telescope and tell me how the universe began, cool. I'll put my faith in God.

 

[barfo]

Sure, it's something called "context". People splice Bible passages all the time for their own agendas. If you remove passages from a parable and compare it to a poetic book (which holds entirely different meanings) or a historical record it's not going to add up. Reading what's around the out-of-context passage is important when looking for Bible contradictions. I've been to this page before and many others, people don't take the time to read their Bibles to justify it for themselves. And I'm not going to spend all my time debunking so-called Bible contradictions. If you are genuinely interested then you can find the resources you need.

That's not very convincing, sorry. What could possibly be the context that makes these statements consistent?

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

barfo

 

[MadeFromDust]

That's not very convincing, sorry. What could possibly be the context that makes these statements consistent?

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

barfo

If anything these passages make the accounts more authentic. This is going by what each of the apostles and the eyewitnesses heard, if you were making up a story that never happened would you include things that clearly contradict one another?

...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice