General Religious discussion

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Reaves, regarding your c.) at the end there, that makes me wonder what your definition of salvation is and how it relates to the reward you get in heaven that is dependent on our acts in life.

However, the free gift of eternal life is not earned but given to anyone who believes and trusts in Jesus.

This sounds like a contradiction to me. If you say you have to believe and trust in Jesus in order to get eternal life, aren't you saying that is the way to earn it?

Mormons believe that Jesus saves everybody in a couple different ways. We believe everyone, without fail, will be resurrected and gain immortality. And we believe that after resurrection, even unrepentant sinners will go to a very nice place, much nicer than this earth, where the only punishment is their sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that if they had followed him they could have lived with him forever instead of just seeing him at the judgment bar.

What we generally think of as "salvation" though is "obtaining all that the Father hath" which is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance (a constant process of turning from sin whenever you mess up), baptism for the remission of sins and laying on of hands by someone in authority to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (as Jesus said, except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God). Yes, no one will be perfect—only a perfect person could be said to deserve salvation. But God requires us to try before Jesus will make up the difference. (And only God is the judge of whether or not we really tried—and the trying doesn't stop until the moment we die.)

As for God having a physical body—are you saying something's impossible for God? We don't know how many universes God may have created, or whether any laws of physics existed in some form before he created the universe we live in, but we do know he created man in his own image.

Basically I am saying that because we are all descendants of Adam, we are all sinful; its in our blood. However, we are judged by God for our own sins. Because we are all children of Adam, we are going to sin. But, if we are born again through belief in and surrender to Jesus Christ, we can overcome the power of sin in our lives. (Though we can never become perfect and without sin in this life.)

This is pretty much what Mormons believe, except that we believe children are incapable of and untainted by sin until they reach the age of accountability, 8 years old. Anyone older than that must put off the natural man and yield to the enticings of the holy spirit and become a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and become as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

[ADDED:]
The insistence that works don't matter is a bit misplaced in modern Christianity. Historically there were two important periods to deemphasize works: back in the New Testament when some people were saying you still had to follow the law of Moses and all of the Pharisaical nitpickiness, and during the reformation when they were reacting against the Catholic church and the forgiveness of sins by saying a certain number of Hail Marys and Our Fathers and whatnot. Like the book of James says, some works have always been a required part of Christianity. Even the conscious choice of believing Jesus is the Christ is a work.

[Reaves]

Do you believe that God always had a physical body?

Well, this is getting into stuff that I'm not sure I have a full grasp on yet, but I will give it my best shot! We believe that God's time, along with the universe, is one eternal round and has no beginning or end. He is perfect so he bound to follow natural laws including the concept of mater: it is neither created or destroyed only changed and directed. He organized existing intelligence into spirits (us) and we can assume that his assent to Godhood was at least somewhat similar. What I can tell you for sure is that right now he has a body similar to our own but perfected as our bodies were created in his image.   

I believe that only God is timeless. He created matter, space, and time at the same instant. He created the "natural" laws that govern everything in the universe.

I believe that in one sense Adam's sin was a perversion of God's plan, a blight upon the creation He deemed "very good". However, in another sense it was part of His plan all along, so that He could glorify Himself through sending His son to the cross.

So if Adam didn't sin, what would be the state of our existence? Would we exist at all? What is your concept of the devil and his role in the Fall?
And if you believe that God and Jesus are the same person, why is he called the son? I guess I just have a hard time understanding the concept of the Trinity in regards to Jesus' earthly ministry. Like who was he praying to if he is God himself?

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would be sinless beings, with the same moral capacity to make choices. However, I see this as being a moot point; if Adam and Eve had not sinned, someone else would have I'd like to think if I had been in Adam's place I would have made the right choice, but who knows.
I believe that the devil, the angel called Lucifer, was the first to rebel against God and the first to sin. Consequently, he was the one who first introduced sin into the world that God pronounced "very good" and he was the one who tempted Eve. However, he did not make or force her or Adam to sin; that was their choice.
I do not believe that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. I believe they are different persons, yet are both codeity together with the Holy Spirit. All have existed eternally, yet differ in roles and authority.

I think I saw a picture on your site of someone being baptized by immersion and I thought it was cool because it seemed similar to how we do it. Is this something you all do? What is the usual age?

Yep, in just the last year or two we installed a baptism pool in our facility. Basically we believe that baptism is a symbol of an inward work in the heart. 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
(ESV) Its a symbol of new life in us that was commanded by Jesus.
For people growing up in the church the general age is about 15-19 I suppose. They need to be able to give a clear testimony of their salvation and show through their lives that they have new spiritual life inside them. For new believers its generally six months - a year after they have been saved, I guess. I personally have not yet been baptized but I plan to do it in my senior year of high school.

Thanks again, but one thing we might consider is continuing this discussion into PMs unless someone else wants to contribute. I mean, it doesn't matter to me and I would enjoy it if someone else did want to chime in, but I would feel bad about keeping the discussion open here if it's only the two of us that are interested.

I was thinking similarly but it looks like Ookla has joined the conversation so we can keep it here Thanks for your thoughts!

Reaves, regarding your c.) at the end there, that makes me wonder what your definition of salvation is and how it relates to the reward you get in heaven that is dependent on our acts in life.

I believe in the hell that Jesus promised to save us from if we would accept him into our lives. So in essence I see salvation as being moved from the kingdom of sin, where the punishment for sin is death, into the kingdom of heaven where Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

However, the free gift of eternal life is not earned but given to anyone who believes and trusts in Jesus.

This sounds like a contradiction to me. If you say you have to believe and trust in Jesus in order to get eternal life, aren't you saying that is the way to earn it?

I suppose you could see it that way. If someone offers me a cool glass of water in a parched desert for free, and I believe him when he says its not poison, that could be considered a "work". But I believe that it was not us who first reached out to God asking for His help, but that we were in open rebellion against Him and He reached out to us, putting the glass of life-giving water in our hands. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (For the future, all biblical references I'll be giving will be taken from the ESV Bible)

As for God having a physical body—are you saying something's impossible for God? We don't know how many universes God may have created, or whether any laws of physics existed in some form before he created the universe we live in, but we do know he created man in his own image.

I believe that God's power is unlimited, but qualified by His other attributes. For example, it is impossible for God to lie because to do so would be to deny the very attributes that define Him as God. Neither can He deny His justice, because to do so would be to deny essential aspects of His character.

[ADDED:]
The insistence that works don't matter is a bit misplaced in modern Christianity. Historically there were two important periods to deemphasize works: back in the New Testament when some people were saying you still had to follow the law of Moses and all of the Pharisaical nitpickiness, and during the reformation when they were reacting against the Catholic church and the forgiveness of sins by saying a certain number of Hail Marys and Our Fathers and whatnot. Like the book of James says, some works have always been a required part of Christianity. Even the conscious choice of believing Jesus is the Christ is a work.

James 2:18  "But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
I think what James is saying is that it is very easy for someone to go to church and nod their head, saying Jesus is Lord. Its harder for that person to repent and break patterns of sin in their life, yet that is what God commands. James goes on to say in verse 21:  "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. "
It would have been impossible for Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice to God if he had not had faith. It does say Abraham was justified by works...because of his faith, the faith that God put there. As always, God is the primary cause and we are the secondary.

Like I said before, anyone feel free to jump in! You don't need to be Mormon or Christian to participate in these discussions. Just share what you believe about God and who Jesus is.

[Frog]

Hey, Ookla! Thanks for chiming in. Especially here:

Mormons believe that Jesus saves everybody in a couple different ways. We believe everyone, without fail, will be resurrected and gain immortality. And we believe that after resurrection, even unrepentant sinners will go to a very nice place, much nicer than this earth, where the only punishment is their sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that if they had followed him they could have lived with him forever instead of just seeing him at the judgment bar.

What we generally think of as "salvation" though is "obtaining all that the Father hath" which is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance (a constant process of turning from sin whenever you mess up), baptism for the remission of sins and laying on of hands by someone in authority to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (as Jesus said, except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God). Yes, no one will be perfect—only a perfect person could be said to deserve salvation. But God requires us to try before Jesus will make up the difference. (And only God is the judge of whether or not we really tried—and the trying doesn't stop until the moment we die.)

I think I might have confused myself and Reaves by extension by failing to realize that his concept of saving vs full salvation would be different than my own (duh ).

Well, this is getting into stuff that I'm not sure I have a full grasp on yet, but I will give it my best shot! We believe that God's time, along with the universe, is one eternal round and has no beginning or end. He is perfect so he bound to follow natural laws including the concept of mater: it is neither created or destroyed only changed and directed. He organized existing intelligence into spirits (us) and we can assume that his assent to Godhood was at least somewhat similar. What I can tell you for sure is that right now he has a body similar to our own but perfected as our bodies were created in his image.   

I believe that only God is timeless. He created matter, space, and time at the same instant. He created the "natural" laws that govern everything in the universe.

Yeah, I think Ookla probably stated that better than me too. I guess I just don't see the 'chicken and egg' theories of when Heavenly Father and the Universe first existed as important to our current salvation as knowing his current state and our relationship with him. I'll be sure to ask him about it someday though. 

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would be sinless beings, with the same moral capacity to make choices. However, I see this as being a moot point; if Adam and Eve had not sinned, someone else would have I'd like to think if I had been in Adam's place I would have made the right choice, but who knows.

So (just for clarification) you believe that Adam and Eve were fully mortal and able to bear children in the Garden? If taking the apple was the wrong choice, what would be the right one?

I do not believe that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. I believe they are different persons, yet are both codeity together with the Holy Spirit. All have existed eternally, yet differ in roles and authority.

Yeah, I always thought the Nicene Creed with the trinity and their concept of God was a bit confusing and contradictory, but that makes more sense.

Yep, in just the last year or two we installed a baptism pool in our facility. Basically we believe that baptism is a symbol of an inward work in the heart. 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
(ESV) Its a symbol of new life in us that was commanded by Jesus.
For people growing up in the church the general age is about 15-19 I suppose. They need to be able to give a clear testimony of their salvation and show through their lives that they have new spiritual life inside them. For new believers its generally six months - a year after they have been saved, I guess. I personally have not yet been baptized but I plan to do it in my senior year of high school.

Congrats!

So is baptism, for you, more of a formality or a requirement?
We all are expected to be baptized at eight or the time of our conversation after a bishop's interview where they see that we understand it's significant. We see it a chance to cleanse the slate and make our first commitment to God. We renew the commitment by repentance and the weekly sacrament. Along with it's connection to repentance, baptism by the proper authority is seen as a vital step for salvation as Jesus was baptized himself.

[Renoard]

 

Just to put it out there since this discussion seems to be all over the map.  The Christian view of the Trinity is sometime best understood by those of other faiths via contrast.  The othodox received Christian dogma is as follows:

God is a spirit being and as such has no corporeal form, except that humanity which the son in the person of Jesus assumed at his incarnation and birth.  The view of three fully humanoid individuals is generally referred to euphemistically as "three little Indians."  Conversely the Sebellian view is commonly called "Jesus Only" or "oneness" and teaches that Jesus himself is actually the father God of all Creation.  These are both heresies that are viewed by many of the church fathers as damning.

The entity known as the son, is not created by the father but is eternal in the same sense as the father, just as the Holy Spirit is also Eternal.  These three are distinct in that they posses the capacity to relate individually and to express relationship with each other.  On the other hand they are indivisibly one divine being or God.  Jesus is in no way of the order of creation, except in that he assumed humanity in order to complete his mission on Earth. 

We are metaphorical Children of God because he created Adam and we are descended from Adam.   We may only become spiritual children when we accept the truth saving faith and are granted the power to become sons of God through religious conversion. 

As humans we are a little lower than the Angels in authority and sophistication.  Our spirit is the life that God breathed into Adam (who was entirely human) passed down through the generations.  Our flesh or brains and bodies are also inherited from Adam and are purely animal in nature.

The indestructible part of a man is the psyche which is translated in the King James version as Soul.  This is the part of man that is made in the image of God and is in essence an artificial intelligence.  It is distinct from the Spirit (life force, or higher nature sometimes called the Super Ego to sound cool and latinized) of  man.  It is the Soul that goes to eternal reward or punishment

There is no divinity or potential divinity in a human and humans are not angelic and do not become angels after death.  Although, like the angels, humans become asexual and non-reproductive after being resurrected.  Instead angels are various orders and species that are created for special purpose, and aside from satanic rebellion have no freewill.  Jesus is not an angelic being but rather an aspect or person in the Godhead.

Satan is the original rebel and fell from God's good graces because he thought he could do a better job at managing Heaven and Earth.  He attempted to implement his own will and God cast him down.  He is of a species distinct from that of humans both is terms of spiritual realities and earthly ones.  The Hebrew word for him in Genesis is Serif not snake or serpent.  He is a Serif, like the Serifs (serifim) in Zecharia, and in Revelations. This is why he is described in the King James version of Revelations as the Old Red Dragon.  A Serif is an angelic being whose species is that of a winged serpent like a "dragon" or wyvern and they rarely have taken corporeal form, such as in the garden east of Eden and when they were give the power to torment the Israeli refugees in the Sinai desert.

---------
It is the inevitable case that popular piety, meaning the guy in the pew, will try to take the message of the Gospel and put it in his own words.  This is a good thing, but eventually leads to a case of the game of Telephone, where telling and retelling can garble some of the core concepts.  That is why dogmatic tenants and interpretive doctrines get written down.  They are tools so that lesser students of the bible can get at the core concepts without miscommunication.

It's also inevitable that portions of core teachings that are not politically correct or inclined to be viewed as superstition are allegorized or minimized and couched in buzz words.  It's more convenient to talk of Serifim (also Seraphim transliterating the Hebrew word) than to say dragons, and be laughed at.  Of course, as Paul said, If I'm crazy it's for Christ, and if I'm sane then it is in your service.  (II Cor. 4) 

[Renoard]

Despite my previous post which was getting rather long, I had a couple of other items to add.

Salvation is prior to and distinct from baptism.  We have an aphorism: It's a Finished Work at Calvary.  Alluding to the statement "it is finished" and illustrating the fact that salvation is through right minded belief in the effectiveness of Jesus blood sacrifice on the cross to remit sins and the sin nature in a man or woman.  When one comes to believe that Jesus is uniquely the son of God in a way that no human can participate in except vicariously, repents as in turning from the former life of sin and making a lifelong habit of restitution for the former life of sin, they can be said to have been converted and are "saved".

However, refusal to be baptized would be ridiculous and rebellious.  Baptism is a sacerdotal act.  Meaning in plain English, it is a form of sacrifice where the person BEING baptized is making the sacrifice.  The person baptizing is merely a necessary officiant and imparts no power to the ceremony.  The act of obedience is the source of effective power rather than the ritual washing. Such rebellion could only be met with judgment.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

You have obviously studied Christian theology. This thread (once Reaves asked his recent questions) is a discussion of what Mormons believe and how it differs from historical Christian theology. So it is useful to have your input as a contrast to what we've been talking about.

Most of Christian theology in this context was thought up and written down after Christ and his original 12 apostles (and Paul) were no longer on the scene. This is what Mormons call the Great Apostasy. Just as you say, there was a big game of Telephone going on, and true doctrines got mixed with the philosophies of men and there was no absolute source to refer to to sort out these questions. So some people got together and came up with often convoluted ways of explaining how the doctrines and philosophies that they liked best fit together and wrote it down. Later people found inconsistencies in these writings and thought up even more convoluted ways of reconciling the inconsistencies, and wrote those down too.

This is why the doctrine of Continuing Revelation (that God has a prophet on the earth today that he talks to in order to explain things, so that if there is a question the prophet can ask God instead of just polling his scholarly friends, and that each individual can confirm the truth of what he says by praying and asking God and getting a witness from the Holy Ghost) is so important in the LDS church. The Reformation was an honest and sincere attempt to weed out the philosophies of men from the true doctrines, but without a pure, untranslated, uncorrupted copy of God's word, or someone to ask, they really did not have the resources to know which was which.

I believe that what most Christian believers actually believe deep in their heart is very close to LDS teachings and doesn't bear much resemblance to the convolutions of theologians.

[Renoard]

Sorry, I was of the impression that the thread was a general discussion not limited to Mormon theology.  Reves asked a question, and I was simply responding to some of the further development.

I am a Pentecostal.  We would argue that in fact there will be a great apostasy but that it has yet to come.  We also believe in prophecy as a gift given to many individuals not a single infallible leader, and the prophecy while alive and well does not progress or evolve the church as anything which Jesus himself and the 12 didn't teach 2000 years ago is false prophecy.

Of course we also do not accept that the 66 books of the canon have been distorted or changed, and that it provides a true revelation of Christ and of God.  In fact adding to or deleting from the list of canonical works is considered to be an act of diabolical false prophecy.  We also believe that there has been a great deal of apostasy far short of the coming Great Apostasy or falling away, that has claimed many poor souls and created a number of new and invalid faiths. This would especially apply to any of those that were founded in the 19'th century on the premise that new revelations contrary to the received text had created a new entity to replace the church and or Israel.  Particularly those that adopted Swingly's heresies.

I'm curious, does the LDS allow members to join the Oddfellows, Masons, Rosey Cruscians or Shriners?

[mtlhddoc2]

Renoard: just to make a historical point here. Books have already been added and deleted at least once in the history of the Christian faith. The Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century removed dozens of books they thought were not of value, or did not deal with Christian philosophy. Plus a host of other "decisions" were made as to who Jesus was and what his relationship with God was. In effect, the bible was actually re-written.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I Googled Swingly's heresies and got no results. I don't know what that is.

Renoard, I was responding to your post because it seemed like you were saying "this is the way it is, and the only way that rational beings can think about it."

From our perspective, most everything in your two posts is false prophecy and not anything which Jesus himself and the 12 apostles taught. We believe it's not Biblical, and it's apostate. I talked about theology in general rather than addressing the particular points, because at the Restoration in the 1820s–30s, we believe God essentially threw out all of post-Apostasy Christian theology and restored Christ's original church. Much of the book of Doctrine & Covenants comes from revelations given by God to Joseph Smith when he asked specific questions about things he was confused about in the Bible and by what the multitudinous sects of the time were teaching and arguing about, and God clarified what the true doctrine was.

We believe that every LDS doctrine is consistent with or at least not contradicted by what's in the Bible. (Some things the Bible doesn't talk about because it was lost over time or wasn't an issue for that group of people.)

As for associating with other groups, the temple recommend interview that devout members go through every two years asks a question about whether the person associates with a group that has teachings contrary to those of the church. Members have to be able to answer that question according to their own conscience. If you're joining one of those groups for the enlightenment and mysteries, a good Mormon would know it's a waste of time. Some of them might have bits of leftover knowledge, but the complete truth is found somewhere else. If you're joining them because they have awesome drinking parties, that's not a good reason either.

I am not saying that you are a false prophet or an apostate. Only that the theology you're referring to is not indisputable fact, and that all the different Christian churches out there—all of them that don't have access to a true prophet and to modern revelation from God—have no way to verify that their interpretation of the Bible (which can be proved indisputably to have been changed over the last 2000 years) is the true one.

[Renoard]

You've actually gotten the history a slightly garbled mtlhddoc2.  The Canonical council was international and included bishops who owed no allegiance to the Rome, especially the Western Empire.  In fact, while Constantine was responsible for establishing the Roman Church and calling the council, he had no input into the canon itself whatever and the Western Empire had a minority of bishops at the time.  In fact the Bishop of Alexandria rather than Rome was the more influential leader.

The canonicity of the books in question was never suggested until the rise of the Hellenistic Jews who after centuries of ethnic cleansing attempts to use social engineering on them, had lost their essential Jewishness.  Because they were detached from the Jewish orthodoxy they added books that were not part of the Jewish canon.  These are books that had already failed the tests for false prophecy and had been discarded over the years.  In fact the Torah and Nevim were closed by 200 BC and the Khetuvim or Writings were closed by 100 AD. (I refuse to use BCE and CE ;P )

However the Hellenes who were trying to get back to their roots and relearn Hebrew and Aramaic, commissioned translators in an irresponsible way to translate any Hebrew work they could lay hands on without the discernment to stick to the Tanakh as it had been received.

The New Testament canon was already established and in use  prior to the council of Nicea as evidenced by a list published by Athanasius in 367 .  And some evidence suggests that this was the same list used by Origen.  It did take until the council of Trent in the 1500's to finally codify this canon composed of the Hebrew Tanakh and the 27 books of the NT.  But that was largely do to the massive conflict between warring movements in the Church.  And yes these men, as students of the twelve and the twelve's students, were lead by the Holy Spirit in their work.  They did make a truly catastrophic error in accepting legalization of the faith at the price that Rome charged.

Peter, I was couching it that way AFTER a prefice that said this is the orthodox Christian view.  I thought my tone wasn't much different from yours. 

Swingly was a brainfart put the wrong name in there.

[Writerainge]

I'm curious, does the LDS allow members to join the Oddfellows, Masons, Rosey Cruscians or Shriners?

I'm not certain of the "doctrinal" rules here, but I know that my boss, (a stake president) is a Masonic leader... some sort of poohba.  If you look into politics and Law Enforcement in Utah especially, you will find many a Morman male wearing a Masonic ring.  Also, you will find that most of the Mormon traditional ceremonies are closely related, if not exact replicas, of Masonic rites and traditions.  So, if it is not widely accepted, it is secretly among the society here.

[Writerainge]

I am not saying that you are a false prophet or an apostate. Only that the theology you're referring to is not indisputable fact, and that all the different Christian churches out there—all of them that don't have access to a true prophet and to modern revelation from God—have no way to verify that their interpretation of the Bible (which can be proved indisputably to have been changed over the last 2000 years) is the true one.

I find this whole thread fascinating you all are very intelligent and well read men who are confident in your respective convictions. 

I wonder though, this modern revelation of which you speak, is it also indisputable and infallible and unchanged since the inception of the LDS church about 150 yrs ago?  You speak to Renoard regarding his theology and how it is not indisputable fact... Are you implying that your theological doctrine is?  How are we able to historically verify said facts?  What can you give me, other than the word of a self proclaimed prophet, that your perspective is fact?  Don't you, by your own argument, invalidate the truth of your doctrine and your book?  what is YOUR way to historically verify that your interpretation of the Mormon Bible is the true one?

I'm not meaning to be "inflammatory" here... Merely asking a few clarifying questions defining your logic.

[Frog]

"By their fruits you shall know them." If you want to know that Thomas Monson, or any of the previous prophets are correct, you have to read their teachings, judge their actions, and then pray about it. If you want to know Book of Mormon is true, you have to read it and pray about it as well. It is promised that if anyone does this with a sincere desire to know the truth, it will be manifested to them. Everyone in the LDS church is encouraged to seek their own testimony and understanding of the gospel. In fact, that is how Joseph Smith received the first vision that sparked his ministry, by reading James and taking its advice to ask God what church to join. He saw Heavenly Father and Jesus and was told that none of the current churches had the full truth and was lead to translate the Book of Mormon, which, though equal in truth as a companion to the Bible, has the benefit of being persevered without years of retransalations by men with various agendas.

The Book of Mormon is the best place to start. If you read it and seek to gain a testimony of it, everything else tends to follow (if the translation of the book is correct, than logically the translator of the book was a prophet and so forth). It's a simple answer, but unlike the men, I am not much of a scholar yet and like the simple answer best.

[Patriotic Kaz]

The whole concept of man achieving godhood is just alien to me i truly believe i can do anything anyone else can do and i know for a fact i'm no demi-god or someone who can achieve something like it...

[Frog]

No one is trying to insult your intelligence Kaz, but it seems to me that if you already determined that you can’t achieve or believe something then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy no matter what kind of potential you had to begin with. It’s not something that can happen over night or through the course of a single mortal life-time, but it’s a continuing process that it is possible to make progress in. At the very least, I’d like to aim for behaving like a child of god with infinite potential and fail than succeed at behaving like an upstart monkey.

You may have said earlier, but I’m lazy. What is your religious background and understanding of this life and what happens after death, Kaz, Writerainge or anyone else?