On being an enemy of God (was: On non-procreation)
- From: The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson <craigBLOCK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:34:00 -0000
John S.Colton wrote:
>> The scriptural verse regarding "the natural man" is devoid
>> of meaning.
> > I disagree. It is defined very nicely, via its opposite, in the very
> verse of its reference, Mosiah 3:19.
The natural man is an enemy to God.
"enemy to God" is also a term devoid of any
real meaning. If you asked 100 mormons what
it means to be an enemy to God, or a natural
man, you would get 100 different answers.
Nah, I'm not so sure. As I see it, it would depend up how much on an
answer you demanded. If you want a simple answer, you would likely get a
very limited set of answers. If you pressed on to ask for the
implications behind that limited set, and then pressed past those
implications in an attempt to delve into the speculation of what the
real meaning might be, then, yeah, you would probably get close to 100
different answers from 100 different believers. However using the same
technique on 25 different people, asked the same question once a year
for four years would probably still get you close to 100 different answers.
This phrase certainly doesn't inform us about
whether or not a person who views erotica is
an enemy to God.
Doesn't it seem there is no "real meaning" in most of the terminology
used to describe religious things? Don't faith, belief and understanding
tend to be very internal things - difficult to express outside of one's
self? What would happen if you tried to get a "real" answer to how one
should go about describing "sweet" or "green". Would you be surprised to
know that I think you'll get 100+ different answers from 100 people?
How many answers would you get if you asked 100 LdS what it means to be
"righteous"? If the answers weren't diverse enough, would that change if
you pulled for implications and speculation or strained at the wording
of the answers hard enough? Would not the same would probably be true
for what it really means to be "Christ-like" or to have the "pure love
Does this make "Christ-like" or "enemy of God" or "green" any less of a
concrete personal understanding? Or does it simply make them difficult
for one to concretely share in such a way as to be understood by another?
Presumably it was God who
made it so that men can be aroused by what
they look at... Why would God make something
pleasant and then say that it is banned?
Presumably it was God who gave us the choice to choose Good or Evil
during mortality. Why would God give us the choice if He was just going
to punish us if we exercise the choice to choose Evil?
There was a parody of scripture popular among the youth when I was
teaching Seminary that went something like: "Wickedness never was
happiness, but righteousness never was fun." Many things in life are
pleasant for people to experience, and some of them are not in harmony
with righteous living. If God made man such they he or she could feel
pleasure from unrighteousness, then who are we to say that it's banned?
Shouldn't we just do everything that brings pleasure, and therefore
bring greater glory to God through our exercise of that with which he
endowed each of us?
Or was mortal life supposed to be something other than one hell of a
Craig, asking if being Socratic too long can cause sciatica?
- Prev by Date: Re: On non-procreation
- Next by Date: Re: Temple Work for Blacks Before 1978?
- Previous by thread: Re: On non-procreation
- Next by thread: Re: On non-procreation