Author Topic: General Religious discussion  (Read 54387 times)

sortitus

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 675
  • Fell Points: 0
  • MVP of the WORLD
    • View Profile
    • I'll kick you in the face!
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #285 on: July 08, 2009, 02:56:25 PM »
AFAIK, a nobody can get into the highest levels unless they are married (in an LDS temple). Husband and wife stay together, though I'm unsure as to what happens if they would normally go to different levels. The ladies still don't get the priesthood though. Well, not directly anyway. I've heard some members claim that women hold the priesthood through their husbands, but these were just random people. It's about three kilometers past that point that my brain explodes.

Well, I'm honestly a bit surprised that you would accept the challenge, mtb, but glad. I don't think I made this clear in my previous post, but I hope that some others of you will join in the challenge and read the book with the viewpoint opposing your own. Obviously, those who are not partisan in this matter will have to read both. ;)
Hero of Ages: Impressive Regality Over Niceness, Y'all
좋아! This time with more ecstatic! 좋네!!! I'll say it again in french! Trois fois voiture!!! Ça va. C'est vrai. C'est bien.
High Knight of the Grand Pie of the Holy Order of Pie, The Left Hand of Pie

origamikaren

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • Fell Points: 0
  • The World is Quiet Here
    • View Profile
    • tiggywinkle
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #286 on: July 08, 2009, 06:37:11 PM »
I composed a very long flaming post, but was thankfully interrupted by my daughter who wanted marshmallows and attention.  If this post doesn't convince you that I have done my research, and can still belong to the church in good conscience, I might be willing to explain myself better in a PM, but since I think you're just trolling at this point, you'd have to give me some pretty strong evidence that it would be worth my time to do so.

Quote
I would so love to discuss some of the points that Mr. Bagley supports with primary sources from the LDS temple archives and personal interviews that had not been available to Mrs. Juanita Brooks.  His is the most impartial and well-researched account of the events that led up to and, most notably, the cover-up of the details of the massacre, as far as I can tell.  Refusing to read this book is akin to a Catholic refusing to believe that there have been problems with child molestation in the priesthood, despite all the evidence.  If I discovered that my church had lied in any point in their history, I would want to know and I would look elsewhere for spiritual authority if I decided it was true.

You're assuming that I don't already know about the Massacre and the possible involvement of church leaders at several levels.  My mother is a historian, and I have grown up learning about Mormon History all my life.  I don't need to read this particular book to know what your general problem is.  I have no interest in debating primary sources with you because the point is moot.

Let's assume for sake of discussion that Brigham Young was fully complicit. Sortitus  summarized my feelings quite well when he said that Brigham Young, as well as the others involved may have done some things that we question now, but they were human and so prone to make mistakes, and that's between them and their God. 

What else do you know about the history of the time?  These people had seen their children murdered, their aged parents driven from their homes and sent out to die in the cold.  They had been forced to abandon nearly everything they owned, and had endured years of privation and epidemic fatal illness, finally walking hundreds of miles while thy watched other members of their parties die of starvation exhaustion and exposure.  Now they had begun to scrape a living out of a piece of desert where local experts said they'd "pay a hundred dollars to see a single ear of corn grow" and they thought they were safe. 

Then they hear that some of the murderers they had fled have followed them west and were stirring up trouble (I know that the settlers had nothing to do with Parley's death, or any of the earlier mob activity, but that was not common knowledge or perception at the time).  Under those circumstances, I might have overreacted and made a terrible mistake as well.  As for the cover-up, the US army was on its way to harass the Church in SLC, and news of something like this could have tipped the precarious balance towards real violence there. 

I do not say that anyone involved made the right decision, but I don't think that debating who made what decision based on scanty sources from people who had good reason to lie will serve any good purpose now. I have plenty of primary sources from my own family history to document the atrocities that the early Mormons suffered, without anyone being held accountable before the law.

Quote
BTW, no one has answered my question about how exactly one gets to the higher levels of heaven that you have described.   I am not baiting you here, I truly do not know.  And are women given the same eternal inheritance, according to your Mormon scriptures, as men?  Co-inheritors?   

I did answer the question when I talked about Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost as well as other Temple ordinances including being Sealed to your family in the temple (Eternal Marriage).

Our Church teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of the Lord.  It does not teach that men and women are the same.  I am just as important to my Heavenly Father as any man, but I do not have the same responsibilities here on Earth.  I believe that my responsibilities for bearing and rearing children, teaching the gospel to my family and making sure that each of them is truly converted, and caring for the sick and afflicted both within my home and in the community at large are just as important as any Priesthood responsibilities.  I believe, and our Church teaches, that something analogous will happen in Heaven.  Again, I can go into specifics if you want to see evidence from the scriptures and from modern prophets, but I'm pretty much done with this discussion as it's currently tending.

Quote
They will just go with less treasure, which we are told we can build up while on the earth.
And you have a problem with the idea that works can get you a better place in Heaven?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 06:38:57 PM by origamikaren »
Check out my daily poetry selection and musings at http://karenspoetryspot.blogspot.com

-Karen

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #287 on: July 08, 2009, 07:02:41 PM »
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #288 on: July 08, 2009, 09:18:24 PM »
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?

Don't know and don't care.  My own works are all I really need to concern myself with.  Are they things God would have me to do?  Then they are good and will accrue for eternity.  I need a close relationship with Him to be able to discern this, though.

It's quite the deal, when you think about it.  God gives the strength and power to do His work on earth and we get the reward.  It's a win-win.

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #289 on: July 08, 2009, 09:33:45 PM »
I'm sorry to have provoked you to a near flame-attack, Karen.  I hate when that happens.  Especially when I waste really good writing time on something I'll never send. 

I know the approved Mormon version of events relating to the Massacre.  Until you read what Bagley has to say, you will not realize that there is so much more to know and there is no reason for us to talk about anything related to Mormon history until you do.  I'll answer your last question in the spirit in which this thread was probably intended:

And you have a problem with the idea that works can get you a better place in Heaven?

I have a problem with any doctrine that is not specifically dealt with in the Christian Bible.  I do know that, speaking of eternity, Jesus said that "(we who will be resurrected with Him will) neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30)  This seems to contradict Mormon beliefs of eternal pregnancy for women, and maybe a lower place than men, but please forgive me in advance if I got this one a bit wrong.  I am still learning.  But trust me when I say that there is nothing in my Bible that speaks of different levels in heaven.  If you can find one, please share.  This will be my first point of contradiction.  (I duck under my kitchen table from impending time-waster-temper-tantrums.) 

Epistemological

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Small furry creature from Alpha Centauri
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #290 on: July 08, 2009, 09:41:58 PM »
Although the man who buried his talents was "cast into the outer darkness (hell, I believe).  There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 25:30  This seems to support your view, that good works are necessary for salvation (did I misunderstand you?), at least for the best kind of salvation, but it could still also mean that this man was never saved and showed that by his lack of productivity.  Problem is, my way of thinking often leads to spiritual laziness, but I still believe that spiritual deadness does not keeps a person from all the fullness of heaven if they have truly repented.  They will just go with less treasure, which we are told we can build up while on the earth. 

James 2:17-20:

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

You believe that God is one; You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?


The demons do not have efficacious (effective) faith. Why is that? They do not obey God (duh!). So while faith and obedience might not be the same thing, faith at least implies obedience. James views faith as a good thing ("you do well") but not complete in and of itself. He writes in chapter 2, verse 22:

You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.

And yet, that last bit (works) is troublesome, because Paul also writes in Romans 4:3:

For what does the Scripture say? 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.'

Abraham was credited as righteous even before he had done anything righteous, because he had faith in the Lord. James says of this in chapter 2, verse 21:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

So we have an apparent contradiction, but I don't think it has to be.

What do we know so far? We know that to be pleasing to God and to effect salvation, the faith must be of an active quality. We already know that it is possible to have faith that is of an inactive quality. What does James think of this faith? Well, in his opinion it is dead. He does not dismiss faith out of hand ("you do well") but he does caution that inactive faith will not avail us. In chapter 2, verse 14 he writes:

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

James does not seem to think so. And as interesting as what he says is, it is almost equally interesting what he does not say. He does not say that these people of dead, workless faith do not have faith. He clearly and categorically states that their faith is ineffective, dead, useless, not pleasing to God. The intellectual assent is right on the mark, but if we do not wish to join the demons in Hell we must do a little better than that.

How does all this match up with what Paul writes? Paul writes that a man is justified by his faith. We see this most clearly in Ephesians 2:8-9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.


So we may safely conclude that our salvation is not a result of what works we perform. Now pair this with what we learned from James. James says it is indeed possible to have faith that is displeasing to God; this faith is faith that does not work. It is a dead and empty faith, and it is not saving faith. So we know the faith Paul speaks of cannot be an intellectual assent. It must be a true commitment to God, and it must produce works. Lack of works is indicative of the faith that does not save.

In verse 10 Paul goes on:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

So there are works that are pleasing to God; these are works done in faith. They make the faith that justified complete, and they prove the faith an active and robust one.

But here we encounter a dilemma. Works are not necessary justification, as we have established. And yet it is possible to 1) have faith and 2) do no good works. And this faith is displeasing to God. The implication is that it does not save.

But we are not saved by works! Ephesians 2:8-10 makes this abundantly clear.

But let's look at Paul's statement a little more carefully. For by grace you have been saved through faith. We see Abraham was justified his faith, but also that he was later justified by his works, and that his works made his faith complete. So was it his justification that was incomplete beforehand? I doubt it; that sounds rather like 'half-pregnant'. I believe his justification was complete but ongoing, something that was not over in a flash but necessary to continually reaffirm. The works prior to his (or anyone else's) justification (that is, first instance of faith) are displeasing to God, because they treat God like a debtor instead of a beloved Father. Not so works done after. Works done after complete faith, and together with faith, save. James asks if that man's faith will save him, and if it is dead it will not, but if it is alive, surely it will, and if it is alive, it will produce good works. So for our initial justification we need faith that is alive. After that, well...Romans 11:22 reads:

Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

To put this verse in context, Paul is speaking of the Jews falling into apostacy and apparently being abandoned by God. God extends his covenant with them to the Gentiles, and the terms of this new covenant are different from the last. Paul warns, though, that the Jews in abandoning him were also abandoned, cut off from his good graces. Paul warns us to that if we do not continue in his good graces the same will happen to us. I think the verse is pretty clearly talking about being cut off from salvation here, but I've had Christians argue fiercely with me over it, insisting that the context somehow changes the meaning. I don't see that it does. The Jews as a people were cut off; if they are saved, it will not be through Judaism. The Gentiles were 'grafted on'; if they fall into apostacy, the same fate awaits them. But I suggest reading the whole chapter for yourself and making up your own mind.

In conclusion, what I get from all this is while the initial point of justification is faith, the point of coming to faith in Christ, and no works preceding that faith in Christ may merit the justification, afterwards that faith must continually be reaffirmed -- it must stay alive. "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Mt. 24: 13). You must continually be justified; otherwise, your faith is proved incomplete. I think this is why Paul speaks in the past tense. Faith is what initially justifies us apart from any works of our own (which are done outside faith and thus displeasing to God), but faithful cooperation with Christ (i.e. good works) is necessary our whole life after, and it is after that our good works become, not just pleasing, but necessary to God for justification, as a continual reaffirmation of the faith we placed in him when we were first justified.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 11:29:08 PM by Epistemological »
Once, I asked my imaginary friend,
"Are you real?"
She thought on this, and then sat
down upon the beach. She poked
her finger into the sand; it left a
hole. Ten times she did this, and
nine holes she left.
"Mostly," she concluded, and I was
forced to agree.

Epistemological

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Small furry creature from Alpha Centauri
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #291 on: July 08, 2009, 09:48:45 PM »
I have a problem with any doctrine that is not specifically dealt with in the Christian Bible.

I think the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is where Mormons get this idea (NB: I am not a Mormon).

 39All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

 40There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.

 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;

 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 09:51:34 PM by Epistemological »
Once, I asked my imaginary friend,
"Are you real?"
She thought on this, and then sat
down upon the beach. She poked
her finger into the sand; it left a
hole. Ten times she did this, and
nine holes she left.
"Mostly," she concluded, and I was
forced to agree.

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #292 on: July 08, 2009, 11:34:03 PM »
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?

Don't know and don't care.  My own works are all I really need to concern myself with.  Are they things God would have me to do?  Then they are good and will accrue for eternity.  I need a close relationship with Him to be able to discern this, though.

It's quite the deal, when you think about it.  God gives the strength and power to do His work on earth and we get the reward.  It's a win-win.

If you are going to offer up a system where some get a better seat at the table than others, you must have some sort of guiddeline you go by, or else it is all just a bunch of people trying to feel better about themselves. If the rich go to heaven and have a better seat at the table just because they were better off than someone the poorer people and could do more, that kind of sets up a system where you can be a cold-hearted slumlord in order to make your money, and then cash out ans  do
"great things" with your millions you bilked from the less fortunate and get a better seat. So either explain it, or just say "I am talking out my your know what" or ignore me, like you did about the whole cities issue which you boasted about, yet had zero proof.

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #293 on: July 08, 2009, 11:56:18 PM »
It's the reason my current Mormon friends have so far taken the same tack as your lovely Karen.  They would rather be ignorant than be educated and risk rocking  the boat (there I go again with my word picture) with their Mormon relatives.

Mtbikemom, this is an insult to Karen.  I do not see how you could intend it any other way; you are stating that she would "rather be ignorant than be educated".

And to claim this of Latter-day Saints in general?

If you've never visited adherents.org, you may wish to.  It's a website filled with religious statistics.  One interesting thing hidden on there somewhere is a demographic study comparing religion to education.  What the study found was that there was, in many cases, a clear correlation between religious activity and education.  In Judaism (being the exceptiong to this), religious activity seemed to be unrelated to education.  In most religions, including all of the Protestant churches surveyed, increased education correlated with decreased spiritual activity.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proved to be the one outlier: for Latter-day Saints, increased education was correlated with increased spiritual activity.
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #294 on: July 09, 2009, 12:29:56 AM »
This seems to contradict Mormon beliefs of eternal pregnancy for women, and maybe a lower place than men, but please forgive me in advance if I got this one a bit wrong.

Eternal pregnancy for women?  Inferior place in heaven for women?  Where in the world do you get this stuff?  I mean, this reminds me of some of the "Mormons have horns" stuff I've heard, or that ridiculous "Mormons have to marry 8 wives to go to heaven" stuff.

Epistemological:

Latter-day Saints get the idea from revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants (which outlines this concept in fair detail).  However, we feel that it is certainly supported and reaffirmed by the Biblical scripture you cite there.
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

sortitus

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 675
  • Fell Points: 0
  • MVP of the WORLD
    • View Profile
    • I'll kick you in the face!
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #295 on: July 09, 2009, 12:48:35 AM »
If the rich go to heaven and have a better seat at the table just because they were better off than someone the poorer people and could do more, that kind of sets up a system where you can be a cold-hearted slumlord in order to make your money, and then cash out ans  do "great things" with your millions you bilked from the less fortunate and get a better seat.
See the widow who gave her last two mites to tithing for those less well off than herself. Jesus stated that she would be reserved a better place than those who were giving heaps of gold that was a mere fraction of their wealth.
I do know that, speaking of eternity, Jesus said that "(we who will be resurrected with Him will) neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30)  This seems to contradict Mormon beliefs of eternal pregnancy for women, and maybe a lower place than men, but please forgive me in advance if I got this one a bit wrong.  I am still learning.  But trust me when I say that there is nothing in my Bible that speaks of different levels in heaven.  If you can find one, please share.  This will be my first point of contradiction.  (I duck under my kitchen table from impending time-waster-temper-tantrums.)
First, stop insulting people (See your last sentence. The one in parentheses.). Second, the quote you gave merely says that people cannot get married in heaven. It says nothing about those who are already married.
Hero of Ages: Impressive Regality Over Niceness, Y'all
좋아! This time with more ecstatic! 좋네!!! I'll say it again in french! Trois fois voiture!!! Ça va. C'est vrai. C'est bien.
High Knight of the Grand Pie of the Holy Order of Pie, The Left Hand of Pie

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #296 on: July 09, 2009, 01:01:45 AM »
sort: ok, thats a start. But again, how do you quantify it? they have spoken of different levels of heaven, yet no formula for acheiving them. Is a poor man who takes care of his children well considered the same as a rich man who does more than that? Is someone who does not give because they need to pay their rent considered less than someone who can afford their rent and gives whatever is left over?

See, to me, that just sets up a system of inequality from the get go. It almost says that if you are well off or not, you wont, or will, get in or have a better spot based solely on your birthrights.

Epistemological

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Small furry creature from Alpha Centauri
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #297 on: July 09, 2009, 01:02:59 AM »
Second, the quote you gave merely says that people cannot get married in heaven. It says nothing about those who are already married.

I agree with this spirit of your post but I don't think this bit is right. You have to look at the context:

 23On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,

 24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'

 25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;

 26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.

 27"Last of all, the woman died.

 28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."

 29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

 30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."


By your interpretation of Jesus' words, the problem the Sadducees posed is never really addressed, because the problem is not about marrying after death. It is about marriage after death.
Once, I asked my imaginary friend,
"Are you real?"
She thought on this, and then sat
down upon the beach. She poked
her finger into the sand; it left a
hole. Ten times she did this, and
nine holes she left.
"Mostly," she concluded, and I was
forced to agree.

sortitus

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 675
  • Fell Points: 0
  • MVP of the WORLD
    • View Profile
    • I'll kick you in the face!
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #298 on: July 09, 2009, 01:27:32 AM »
sort: ok, thats a start. But again, how do you quantify it? they have spoken of different levels of heaven, yet no formula for acheiving them. Is a poor man who takes care of his children well considered the same as a rich man who does more than that? Is someone who does not give because they need to pay their rent considered less than someone who can afford their rent and gives whatever is left over?

See, to me, that just sets up a system of inequality from the get go. It almost says that if you are well off or not, you wont, or will, get in or have a better spot based solely on your birthrights.
Christ said to give away all that you don't need. I'd assume that anyone who gives away everything they have but what they need to survive is maxing out the benefits from this. Perhaps it's judged on the amount of wealth you kept but did not need.
I agree with this spirit of your post but I don't think this bit is right. You have to look at the context:

 23On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,

 24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'

 25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;

 26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.

 27"Last of all, the woman died.

 28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."

 29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

 30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."


By your interpretation of Jesus' words, the problem the Sadducees posed is never really addressed, because the problem is not about marrying after death. It is about marriage after death.
I was just being clever, but you make a good point. Searching LDS.org's scriptures, the JST says nothing about this. The text quoted is as it lies in LDS scripture.
Hero of Ages: Impressive Regality Over Niceness, Y'all
좋아! This time with more ecstatic! 좋네!!! I'll say it again in french! Trois fois voiture!!! Ça va. C'est vrai. C'est bien.
High Knight of the Grand Pie of the Holy Order of Pie, The Left Hand of Pie

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #299 on: July 09, 2009, 04:48:02 AM »
sort: ok, that is a fair explanation as quoted from scripture. I will not question it further, except to point out that if you do not attempt to have, you can have nothing to give away. so the whole thing is one big catch-22. It is also very rare indeed to see anyone who keeps only what they need. Does any of us "need" the internet? Or a television?