Is God unable to create in kind?

[nrajeff]

Question for Andy: Does God's system of grace-withholding, as you understand it, seem right to you?

yes
no

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

Question for Andy: Does God's system of grace-withholding, as you understand it, seem right to you?

yes
no

I am a born again Christian, so yes it seems right to me without a doubt.

You have no argument and are making a Biblical fool of yourself here.

Andy

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

I am a born again Christian, so yes it seems right to me without a doubt.

---Explain how it seems right for God to be unfair.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Explain how it seems right for God to be unfair.

Hey you're the one that can't put two and two together when it comes to Biblical things....God is not being unfair in the slightest.

You remind me of how Adam accused God of giving him Eve and causing him to sin, thus blaming God for what he (Adam) did.

Andy

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
The "point", jeff? It isn't the one who "runs after" or "wills it" (i.e. ELECTION) but GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY, jeff. That's the point you keep EVADING.

---I am not evading that. I believe that God shows mercy, silly. The point YOU keep evading with your straw men is WHY He shows mercy to some and not to others...

You've been told, jeff: ACCORDING TO HIS OWN GOOD WILL AND PLEASURE WHATEVER THOSE REASONS MIGHT BE TO WHICH WE'RE NOT PRIVY. You've EVADED the whole 9th chapter of Romans. You REFUSE to engage it exegetically because it can't be contorted to fit Mormon dogma and you know it.

...Of course, we all know why you have to run from that: In Calvinism, God has no recognizably coherent, fair, ethical explanation for His decisions. You can't say "Sure He has a reasonable system: He saves all the people who hear and accept the gospel while in this life, and He sends the rest to hel.l" You cant say that because, as we already showed, Calvinism's Sovereignty + Predestination mixture is a cart-before-horse deal, where it's NOT a case of "You did what was requried, ERGO you get to be saved"---

I'll let the Apostle Paul answer that...Now pay attention to HIS words for once:

Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth


Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.


Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.


Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


He who has ears, let him hear, jeff:

Re-read these verses until they finally make an impact on you:

God will have comp***ion on whom He so chooses. Election/salvation is NOT OF HIM THAT WILLS IT, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNS AFTER IT...but SOLELY by GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Paul says you're WRONG in your beliefs regarding this.

...instead, Calvinism goes "You got saved, THEREFORE you will accept Jesus & get baptized & believe in and understand the Trinity etc." ...

No, the Bible "goes" that one is DEAD in tressp*** and sin, and that one MUST be first "born from above" (which MEANS spiritual REGENERATION), THEN that one can be saved by calling on Jesus IN FAITH. No one "understands" the Trinity other than acknowledging that scripture declares The Father is GOD, the SON is GOD, the Holy Spirit is GOD. The three "persons" ARE the one God...and this oneness surp***es "one in purpose" of Mormon doctrine (cf. John 10:30)

...THAT is the still-fatal flaw in Calvinistic theology and soteriology. THAT is what makes God into a capricious petty tyrant. It leaves you with a lame explanation for why God shows mercy to some but not others: "It's because God said so, that's why!" which the average parenting cl*** teacher would say is not a mature reason. Certainly not what a good parent would use to justify an unfair decision.

See answer above via the Apostle Paul who sez you're WRONG, jeff.



Quote:
Is this an admittance that GOD INDEED ELECTS ONLY SOME?

----You are lost again if you think I said that He doesn't.

Huh? You lost me there. I'm not sure what you mean by this.


Quote:
And you know full well I was referring to Paul's castigation of those WHO DENY GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY IN ELECTION...and you're one of them, jeff.

---LOL.

Why do you laugh out loud when you've demonstrated time and again that's EXACTLY the thing you do, jeff?


Quote:
LOL. I DENY that God is CAPRICIOUS as well, jeff. He has His own REASONS, according to His own WILL, dude.

---Yeah, and you think His reason is "Because I said so, and you better not look into it too much or you'll go to hell!" Great parenting skills there.

Re-read Romans 9 which I reprinted above, jeff. Paul ANSWERS YOU. When are you gonna realize your argument is with the Biblical writers, NOT with Calvin or me?


Quote:
You are in FACT and DEED calling God unrighteous because He elects this or than one

---Saying that God's system is a meritocracy isn't calling Him unrighteous, silly. JD, you REALLY need to come back to a sane explanation for God's decisions. Come back to the LDS. We do take prodigals back, you know.

You weren't paying attention to Paul, jeff:


Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.


Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


How is it you don't understand, jeff? Paul just said that election/salvation is not "meritorious". It's NOT of the one who "wills" electon/salvation...it's NOT of him that "runs" after it...it's only of GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Paul just contradicted your theology, jeff. When are you going to believe Jesus and Paul over and above what Joseph Smith told you to believe???

[Father_JD]

Quote:
and OTHERS (such as Pharoah) HE HARDENS

---I thought all you textual critics and exegesis experts decided that "God hardens some" can't really mean that, since it would make God the creator of evil. Didn't you guys decide that it's just an idiom, just poetic license? And that it REALLY means something other than what it seems to be saying?

It's a P***IVE "hardening"...NOT "active", jeff. All God has to do withdraw any restraints that he had placed on the individual.


Quote:
Let's say there are four people on death row, all guilty of murder in the 1st degree, all deserving of death. The governor (according to his own reasons not known to anyone) deigns to RELEASE one of the murderers but to keep the other three on death row.

----That is a great ****ogy to the unfairness of Calvinism. You have my blessings to proceed.

Nope. A great ****ogy as to WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES REGARDING ELECTION AND SALVATION, jeff. Why do you "kick against the goads"??


Quote:
The question: Is the governor UNFAIR or UNRIGHETEOUS because he pardoned one but not the others??

---Of COURSE he is. He is unrighteous BECAUSE his system is unfair. To treat one person different from another even though both did the same thing for the same reason, is patently unfair by definition. Any Ethics 101 student could tell you that. (Unless the student has fallen for Calvinism, in which case he might give you some nonsensical answer.)

Ahhh. Good ol' fashioned fleshy reasoning, jeff, and actually demonstrates you have no idea what "grace" or "mercy" mean. ALL were deserving of death but because he chooses one to live he's "unfair" to the others in your mind. In three words, jeff: You are wrong.

Suppose you were a Jew in Nazi Germany or Poland, and the SS came by and lined all your children up against a wall and shot them. And then the SS gave you next-door neighbor's kids a p***, for no reason. I can see you saying "Well. THAT was fair to my children."

Not if ALL the children were "guilty" of death, jeff. This is WHY your ****ogy FAILS, dude. You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR. You're also in error by categorizing God's SOVEREIGN DECREES AS HAVING "NO REASONS".

He most certainly has His "reasons", jeff. This is why you're argument consistently FAILS against scripture.


Quote:
God owes NO ONE MERCY.

--Sure He does. He owes mercy to all those who deserve it for any number of reasons. Giving mercy to those who deserve it is what makes God a wise, fair, MERCIFUL God. YOUR God is merciless if He can't dispense mercy to the penitent, the retarded, the aborted and abused children, and to those like Mother Teresa and Ghandi who spend their lives doing good in the world at great personal sacrifice.

1. No one deserves "mercy". Hence you are in error.
2. The "penitent" have already been shown mercy and grace. Hence God does NOT "reward" penitence.
3. All have SINNED, jeff. You have zero biblical concept of how wicked sin is, dude, nor God's HATRED for it.
4. You have zero concept of the HOLINESS OF GOD.

Hence you're nothing but in error in your thinking and your theology because you refuse to believe the Bible regarding these things.


Quote:
God owes NO ONE GRACE, otherwise, it isn't mercy or grace!!

---Wherever God DOES give out grace, He needs to do it on a fair basis. Otherwise, it's UNFAIR. Paul said "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Your version would have him saying "Sin abounded, and grace? Well, it abounded a little, because it only abounded in the case of the randomly chosen few."

Misapplication of the text, jeff. According to Mormon thinking, there shouldn't be ANY grace BECAUSE SIN ABOUNDED. Think about that. You're going contrary to Mormon belief.

Then there is 2 Corinthians 6:1--"We beseech you...receive not the grace of God in vain." And then there is ***us 2:11 nasb "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men."

The text is NOT saying that God has bestowed salvation universally upon mankind. He MEANS that grace and salvation has come upon not only upon Jews, but upon ALL MEN, gentiles of all nationalities, etc. You've gotta begin READING IN CONTEXT for once. And if I might point out, you've done yet again the Mormon "thing:

1. NOT engage verses you don't like but then...
2. Proffer OTHER verses more amenable (or so you think!) to your cause.

Seems like maybe God offers grace to all, not to just a randomly chosen few. Those who receive it in vain become the reason it did them no good, which makes the system FAIR. Your version has God not even OFFERING grace to most people, based on the lame "I won't even offer grace to many and the reason is because I said so." Lame.

LOL. Your argument is with Paul, dude. What more can I say? Let's see you ENGAGE ROMANS 9, dude.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

God is not being unfair in the slightest.

----So all your Cram buddies (and probably some here) who have said "God ISN'T fair, and you should be grateful that He isn't"----you're saying those pals of yours are wrong? Or lying?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Ahhh. Good ol' fashioned fleshy reasoning, jeff,

--It's called "God-given common sense," actually, and you should try it sometime.

and actually demonstrates you have no idea what "grace" or "mercy" mean.

--I know what they mean--they mean that a wise and righteous and MERCIFUL judge considers the mitigating, extenuating circumstances in each case and dispenses mercy accordingly. YOUR God, in contrast, says "Person A, you go to hell. Person B, you go to heaven, even though you did nothing different from what Person A did." That is the epitome of unfairness, immaturity, and capriciousness.

Not if ALL the children were "guilty" of death, jeff. This is WHY your ****ogy FAILS, dude. You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR.

---I will be happy to put your conjecture up against what Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Pastors, said about it:

Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God.

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2spu0108.htm

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

----So all your Cram buddies (and probably some here) who have said "God ISN'T fair, and you should be grateful that He isn't"----you're saying those pals of yours are wrong? Or lying?

OUT OF CONTEXT.. They like I would say "thank God He doesn't give me what is fair. To be fair and just I deserve the Lake of Fire.. All men do.. So God did what wasn't fair at all. He came and took my punishment. As for God being 100% true to His word.. He can be nothing else.. IHS jim

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Ahhh. Good ol' fashioned fleshy reasoning, jeff,

--It's called "God-given common sense," actually, and you should try it sometime.

"Common" sense is not to be equated with GOD'S SENSE, jeff.


Quote:
and actually demonstrates you have no idea what "grace" or "mercy" mean.

--I know what they mean--they mean that a wise and righteous and MERCIFUL judge considers the mitigating, extenuating circumstances in each case and dispenses mercy accordingly. YOUR God, in contrast, says "Person A, you go to hell. Person B, you go to heaven, even though you did nothing different from what Person A did." That is the epitome of unfairness, immaturity, and capriciousness.

Did you ever bother to exegete Romans 9, jeff? I don't think you've given Paul's words a moments worth of consideration. WHY is this? God decrees JUSTICE for some, MERCY AND GRACE for others. It's UNFAIR according to YOU because you STILL do NOT understand that if GRACE and MERCY are OWED, they're no longer "grace" and "mercy". God HAS His REASONS as to why He chooses some for life, and others He p***es over.


Quote:
Not if ALL the children were "guilty" of death, jeff. This is WHY your ****ogy FAILS, dude. You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR.

---I will be happy to put your conjecture up against what Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Pastors, said about it:

Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God.

Spurgeon's remarks do NOT mitigate the FACT that even newborns are BORN IN SIN, jeff. You can't grasp this reality because of your steadfast REFUSUAL to acknowledge that pesky doctrine called, "Original Sin".

I have no doubt that in the case of infants, or small children who DIE, that God, in His mercy "calls them home".

There's NO contradiction between what I've written with Spurgeon's.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

"Common" sense is not to be equated with GOD'S SENSE, jeff.

---I tend to agree that if TULIP came from the mind of God, then God's sense and the common sense of fair play, justice, mercy, etc. that He gives to humans don't seem equatable.

Did you ever bother to exegete Romans 9, jeff?

---I am getting closer to having the time to go over it and show you how wrong your understanding of it is.

God decrees JUSTICE for some, MERCY AND GRACE for others.

--Actually, I think He decrees justice for ALL, like the Pledge of Allegiance says. And mercy to all whose situations merit mercy. Like the retarded, the abused, etc. who don't really know right from wrong in some of the choices they make. You REALLY need to embrace the more-merciful God that I believe in. Less cognitive dissonance, since in our theology there is no contradiction between what we SAY about God being merciful, and what we BELIEVE as far as how He decides who gets saved and who does not. You need no longer believe in the Powerball Lottery of Salvation.

God HAS His REASONS as to why He chooses some for life, and others He p***es over.

--If they were FAIR reasons, I'd think you'd be able to say so. But you can't because your Dante- and Edwards-era "traditional" soteriology has no answer except "The ****ed go to hell for doing nothing different than the saved do for some reason that we HOPE is fair...somehow...although it makes no sense and defies all the rules of fairness....God SAID SO and that better be good enough of an explanation for you or you're not a Christian!"

You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR.

---Straw Man #5. I have NEVER said that all people are innocent, or that people are all innocent. But if you don't think that SOME people are innocent, then I pity you and I pity the Episcopalians you counsel.

"Father, I had a miscarriage last week, and I'm overcome with grief. Can you give me some words of consolation and re***urance that I will see my baby in the hereafter?"

"Well, your baby was not innocent, I can tell you that much, so there's a good chance it's in hell right now, since only a chosen few there be that make it to heaven. But YOU are a Christian, right? You believe in Trinitarianism and TULIP? Then YOU'RE going to heaven, guaranteed, so don't worry about whether your baby was predestinated for hell or heaven. You won't even have any memories of that baby in heaven, so it'll all be cool."

"But Father! What sins did my baby commit? What sins was she even ABLE to have committed!?"

"Um, well, er, uh...she, like all baby mammals, wanted to live, right?"

"Yes, but I don't see how.."

"The sin of SELFISHNESS! There ya go! Your baby was as much a sinner as Osama and Obama, because if you've committed ONE sin, you're guilty of ALL!"

"Um, Father, I think I will start attending another church, starting now. Someplace that teaches a God of REAL fairness and mercy."

"But why? I can't imagine why you'd have any problem with true Christian, Biblical doctrine, right outta the Bible! You must never have been a real Christian."

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by Radix

I really should not be surprised there has not been a response to this. A self existent God is beyond the comprehension of most LDS. Somehow in LDS circles there are eternal principles, but no eternal god.

A self-existent God is actually beyond the comprehension of anyone from what I've seen, not just LDS. Most a believer in a "self existent" God does not recognize that believing in such believes in a God who is the author of all evil, as logic would dictate. Its either, believing in a self-existent God requires upon such an one to be the source of all evil, or to believe in a self existent God is to throw logic and reason out the window. Either way, the question of the OP exposes the silliness of mainstreamism.

love,
stem

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

A self-existent God is actually beyond the comprehension of anyone from what I've seen, not just LDS. Most a believer in a "self existent" God does not recognize that believing in such believes in a God who is the author of all evil, as logic would dictate. Its either, believing in a self-existent God requires upon such an one to be the source of all evil, or to believe in a self existent God is to throw logic and reason out the window. Either way, the question of the OP exposes the silliness of mainstreamism.

love,
stem

Then you would have to admit that the LDS god is a perpetuator of evil because he took Satan's intelligence and formed him into a spiritual child knowing full well how he would turn out.

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Then you would have to admit that the LDS god is a perpetuator of evil because he took Satan's intelligence and formed him into a spiritual child knowing full well how he would turn out.

JD attempted this, trying to bring down the LDS beliefs with his own-game too. Let's consider your point for a sec...if God to LDS "took Satan's intelligences and formed him into a spirtual child knowing full well how he would turn out" then how can one force upon God the conception of all of Satan's evil deeds and designs? It seems you are attempting to force LDS to arrive at a conclusion what "intelligences" are exactly and how they formed our spirits--neither of which is conclusively known by LDS.

The second problem with your attempt to bring LDS beliefs down with your own (a logical fallacy) is that to LDS Lucifer's rebellion was a repeat or copy of previous rebellions and evils already practiced through eternity. Seeing as they were done for eternity past, your attempted implied conclusion doesn't hold since God to LDS did not conceive of the evils that were practiced for eternity past already.

The third problem you face with your attempt to bring down LDS beliefs with your own is that doing such does not address the problems your belief system has. Its deflection, which most a mainstreamer resorts to when confronted with challenges of his/her faith.

love,
stem

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

if God to LDS "took Satan's intelligences and formed him into a spirtual child knowing full well how he would turn out" then how can one force upon God the conception of all of Satan's evil deeds and designs?
love,
stem

That is simple, because if he is omniscient then he knows what Satan would do before he formed him into a spirit child. Thus knowing full well how he will turn out he still forms him anyway. Thus he is perpetuating evil. Unless of course you say that the LDS god is not in control of who will be formed in the first place i.e. he had no control in the formation of Satan's intelligence into a spiritual child.

[nrajeff]

I would rather worship a God who is not absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign but is absolutely good and fair---than worship a God who IS absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign, but still creates evil beings and makes unfair judgments.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

I would rather worship a God who is not absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign but is absolutely good and fair---than worship a God who IS absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign, but still creates evil beings and makes unfair judgments.

Jeff, that is what everybody does that follow a false god, they make up what they want in a god rather than follow the one and true living God.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

I would rather worship a God who is not absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign but is absolutely good and fair---than worship a God who IS absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign, but still creates evil beings and makes unfair judgments.

So you would rather have a God that forces goodness. That will only create other being that have no will of their own.. You want a God of robots. The God of the Bible allows freedom to love Him or turn away from Him. He offerers the choice between life and death and allows men, and angels to choose.. Because God is in the past, present, and the future He knows what will happen, who will choose life and who will choose death.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff, that is what everybody does that follow a false god, they make up what they want in a god rather than follow the one and true living God.

----I suppose that is a true statement, and IMO a good example of this phenonemeon is how post-apostolioc-era Christians made up a god who has multiple personalities and who is vindictive and capricious, i.e. the god of TULIP and Trinitarianism.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by James Banta

So you would rather have a God that forces goodness.

--How on EARTH did you arrive at the conclusion that I said THAT? I said that I would rather worship a God who is GOOD, even if He isn't absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign, than worship a God who is the opposite of those things. "Forces goodness"? It's YOUR concept of God who is more like that, forcing some people to be saved, taking people's free will out of the equation, "invading" those who were predestined to be the elect (as some Evangelicals have stated it), etc.

That will only create other being that have no will of their own..You want a God of robots.

---No, YOU want that kind of God, one whose grace is IRRESISTABLE. One who is totally SOVEREIGN, which means that no one else has any input into His decisions. One who creates most people for destruction as vessels of wrath.

The God of the Bible allows freedom to love Him or turn away from Him. He offerers the choice between life and death and allows men, and angels to choose..

---That sounds more like the LDS version of God than the Evangelical version. A fun experiment would be for an LDS person to go over to Carm and post what you have said about God without saying that they are YOUR beliefs, and see how much "That is non-Christian, it's heresy!" replies come from your buddies over there.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

----I suppose that is a true statement, and IMO a good example of this phenonemeon is how post-apostolioc-era Christians made up a god who has multiple personalities and who is vindictive and capricious, i.e. the god of TULIP and Trinitarianism.

It would be easier to believe in three separate distinct gods (in addition to the many other gods), but because it is easier does not make it correct. The polytheistic view of Mormonism ignores monotheism of the Bible.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--How on EARTH did you arrive at the conclusion that I said THAT? I said that I would rather worship a God who is GOOD, even if He isn't absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign, than worship a God who is the opposite of those things. "Forces goodness"? It's YOUR concept of God who is more like that, forcing some people to be saved, taking people's free will out of the equation, "invading" those who were predestined to be the elect (as some Evangelicals have stated it), etc.



---No, YOU want that kind of God, one whose grace is IRRESISTABLE. One who is totally SOVEREIGN, which means that no one else has any input into His decisions. One who creates most people for destruction as vessels of wrath.


---That sounds more like the LDS version of God than the Evangelical version. A fun experiment would be for an LDS person to go over to Carm and post what you have said about God without saying that they are YOUR beliefs, and see how much "That is non-Christian, it's heresy!" replies come from your buddies over there.

Unless God in the weakling of mormonism's creation He would have to be the Omnipresent God to be fair in these matters.. That is who the Bible teaches that He is. The Being that is always present everywhere in all time.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Unless God in the weakling of mormonism's creation He would have to be the Omnipresent God to be fair in these matters..

---Not true. For a judge to be fair, he doesn't need to be everywhere simultaneously. He just needs to believe that it's important to treat people fairly, and act on that belief. I don't need to be omnipresent in order to treat each of my kids fairly. All I need to do is to take into account each child's individual circumstances, and not punish him for what he wasn't able to understand or do. In other words, I just need to be understanding and comp***ionate and empathetic. LDS believe that one of the things Jesus learned from His time on Earth as one of us, was empathy for our situation, which makes Him eminently qualified to be a fair judge of us.

[stemelbow]

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is simple, because if he is omniscient then he knows what Satan would do before he formed him into a spirit child. Thus knowing full well how he will turn out he still forms him anyway. Thus he is perpetuating evil. Unless of course you say that the LDS god is not in control of who will be formed in the first place i.e. he had no control in the formation of Satan's intelligence into a spiritual child.

The whole idea of whether God had control of which individual spirits He formed from intelligences is an interesting piece of speculation. But such is merely speculation at this point. If speculation then your conclusion is hardly provable. So I asked specifically how can evil and its entire conception being within God, for LDS, and you respond saying such can be true because He perpetuated evil, given your speculations as true. If God's forming of satan proved to be a necessity for the rest of His creations, for eternal progression purposes, then your whole point is moot. Yet, what remains a huge problem and handily unaddressed by you is the problem that mainstreamism forces upon God to be the very source of all evil. to use evil for the greater good, is one thing, but to be the very cause of it, as mainstreamism is a wholly other. Reasonably, most would have to agree with that.

love,
stem

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

The whole idea of whether God had control of which individual spirits He formed from intelligences is an interesting piece of speculation. But such is merely speculation at this point. If speculation then your conclusion is hardly provable. So I asked specifically how can evil and its entire conception being within God, for LDS, and you respond saying such can be true because He perpetuated evil, given your speculations as true. If God's forming of satan proved to be a necessity for the rest of His creations, for eternal progression purposes, then your whole point is moot. Yet, what remains a huge problem and handily unaddressed by you is the problem that mainstreamism forces upon God to be the very source of all evil. to use evil for the greater good, is one thing, but to be the very cause of it, as mainstreamism is a wholly other. Reasonably, most would have to agree with that.

love,
stem

By this thesis you Stem would be evil as well.. You have had children and they have proved to be equal in the evil in their hearts as an murderer.. Once more you knew they would be but you brought them into the world anyway.. So are you responsible for their sins or are you merely a accessor after the fact? IHS jim