God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

You know it’s funny, I reached “God” status but nothing seems to have changed…

Well, it could be worse. If you were Mormon, you could look forward to eternal baby-making and overseeing a system in which a large percentage of your offspring are condemned to eternal damnation—because you weren’t smart enough to figure out a better system.

For entertainment, you could even create one of those McDonald’s-style signs bragging about the numbers created (served?):

“Welcome to Limnor’s universe, where he and his wife (wives?) have created 2,584,698,543,549,798,352,142 spirit children.”

The Mormon view of eternal life looks ridiculous.

Right lol — if godhood is mainly about producing spirit bodies so eternal intelligences can qualify for physical bodies and maybe exalted ones later—and most fail—then I’ll take mortality over that head-swim.

I assume the lot of you here have discussed the moral implications of participation in that crap shoot?

[MG 2.0]

You know it’s funny, I reached “God” status but nothing seems to have changed…

Well, it could be worse. If you were Mormon, you could look forward to eternal baby-making and overseeing a system in which a large percentage of your offspring are condemned to eternal damnation—because you weren’t smart enough to figure out a better system.

For entertainment, you could even create one of those McDonald’s-style signs bragging about the numbers created (served?):

“Welcome to Limnor’s universe, where he and his wife (wives?) have created 2,584,698,543,549,798,352,142 spirit children.”

The Mormon view of eternal life looks ridiculous.

The church's doctrine that emphasizes eternal families, growth, and the potential for individuals to progress spiritually forever is at the core of your satirical composition.

My question to you is this: If there is an afterlife in which you find yourself existing in some form or fashion as an individual rather being subsumed into a larger whole where you lose your sense/ qualities as an individual, how might you describe your continued existence?

What would be if most import to you? Who would you want to associate with? What would you want to find yourself doing 'day after day'?

It's pretty gosh darn easy to shoot something down. What would you replace it with?

I don't want to steer the conversation off of where you're going necessarily, I would simply suggest, again, that it's not that hard to be an armchair quarterback.

Regards,
MG

[bill4long]

My question to you is this: If there is an afterlife in which you find yourself existing in some form or fashion as an individual rather being subsumed into a larger whole where you lose your sense/ qualities as an individual, how might you describe your continued existence?

Assuming the New Testament is true, the answer is bliss. Perfect unity with the One and Only Most High (John 17:3), and with all of the other Sons of God in absolute bliss (Psalm 16:11), wielding absolute power (Dan 7:14,22) over the universe and beyond. (John 17, Eph 1:20,21; 2:6, Col 1:19, 2:9,10,

There is only one Most High God and One Divine Family who rules the universe as God's "body" and bears His "Name." They are all One. (John 17). There is no "eternal marriage" or "eternal families." (Luke 20:34,35.) There is One Family (Mat 8:11, Gal 3:29), the True Temple (Eph 2:21, 1 Cor 3:16), consisting of the Most High and his "Sons." (Gal 3:7,26, Eph 1:5, Heb 2:10) All are equal, united, without distinctions of sex, race, social status. (Gal 3:28) They are completely united in the "Pleroma" of the Deity. The union is transpersonal (Col 2:9,10, Isaiah 11:2). Much more can be said. Far superior to any eternal anthropomorphic, sophmoric stuff about eternal marriage between individuals procreating spirit babies and all that.

The Sons of God are All One, One True Temple fitly framed.

What would be if most import to you? Who would you want to associate with? What would you want to find yourself doing 'day after day'?

Everyone, all the time. Enjoying perfect transpersonal blissful union, ruling the universe. What else?

It's pretty gosh darn easy to shoot something down. What would you replace it with?

Read the New Testament if you want to know what it says about what the Christian afterlife. It's quite stunning.

[Marcus]

So, how does the situation change if we consider that no redefinition is required: us humans simply didn't understand god's definition to begin with?

That’s possible, yes. I don’t think “God’s ways are not our ways” limits our ability to recognize good as good, nor do I think God asks us to suspend that recognition—even when we’re thinking about Him. It seems more meaningful to say that we may not grasp God’s purposes, without concluding that God would will or require what is not good. I think Jesus explains something along these lines when He says a good father does not give his child a snake.

And yet the good father gave an order to murder a child that can only be reconciled as arguing 'He didn't really mean what His words said.' The amount of maneuvering to do these kinds of reconciliations suggests another possibility, that god does not exist and that these conflicting messages are human-made.

[bill4long]

That’s possible, yes. I don’t think “God’s ways are not our ways” limits our ability to recognize good as good, nor do I think God asks us to suspend that recognition—even when we’re thinking about Him. It seems more meaningful to say that we may not grasp God’s purposes, without concluding that God would will or require what is not good. I think Jesus explains something along these lines when He says a good father does not give his child a snake.

And yet the good father gave an order to murder a child that can only be reconciled as arguing 'He didn't really mean what His words said.' The amount of maneuvering to do these kinds of reconciliations suggests another possibility, that god does not exist and that these conflicting messages are human-made.

A Creator may exist, and yet Genesis be fiction. There are several logical possibilities. As for Yahwism, the consensus of non-apologist scholars leans in the direction that the Torah in its current form is late in the game and most likely was produced during the so-called Josiah's Reform, or (Josiah's Purge as some prefer.)

[Limnor]

That’s possible, yes. I don’t think “God’s ways are not our ways” limits our ability to recognize good as good, nor do I think God asks us to suspend that recognition—even when we’re thinking about Him. It seems more meaningful to say that we may not grasp God’s purposes, without concluding that God would will or require what is not good. I think Jesus explains something along these lines when He says a good father does not give his child a snake.

And yet the good father gave an order to murder a child that can only be reconciled as arguing 'He didn't really mean what His words said.' The amount of maneuvering to do these kinds of reconciliations suggests another possibility, that god does not exist and that these conflicting messages are human-made.

That’s true, and I’ve often wondered if that is why people leave God completely when they leave the LDS church. A trust has been broken.

So I’ll agree and concur that your objection is powerful and understandable, but I’d argue there is another explanation than saying “God didn’t really mean it.” I also agree that any smoothing over of the story is subject to protecting a conclusion rather than reading and understanding the implications from the text itself.

Your objection about snakes from good fathers is legit. But for me, i think the command was horrifying on purpose—there was no deception, and God didn’t say something like “I want you to sacrifice Isaac because murdering him is good.” God didn’t offer a snake and say it was bread. It was clearly something horrifying, and I think God meant it.

[Limnor]

Marcus Im just approaching discussion here as just that—discussion. I don’t want to excuse anything or lessen impact. What I’m exploring is: if God meant it, what does that say about obedience, conscience, and how God Himself works?

The truth is I don’t know how to resolve this, and I’m not sure a clean resolution exists. I’m not saying the command was good or understandable—only that the text portrays it as real, horrifying, and intentional, and I wouldn’t feel honest trying to smooth that away.

[Marcus]

And yet the good father gave an order to murder a child that can only be reconciled as arguing 'He didn't really mean what His words said.' The amount of maneuvering to do these kinds of reconciliations suggests another possibility, that god does not exist and that these conflicting messages are human-made.

That’s true, and I’ve often wondered if that is why people leave God completely when they leave the LDS church. A trust has been broken...

No, when someone says they don't believe in supernatural entities, saying their disbelief must be due to a "broken trust" is like saying the reason you don't believe in Santa Claus as an adult is because Santa Claus failed to bring you a pony when you were 12. He betrayed you!! So your response is to turn your back on him.

I don't believe in a god because, regardless of the stories I learned in my youth, the evidence does not support the existence of supernatural entities. End of story.

Imposing reasoning that implies disbelief is caused by a 'betrayal' of some sort is a story a believer might create but it sounds like nothing more than the believer imposing their position onto the nonbeliever. That may not be your intent, but it comes across that way.

[Marcus]

Marcus Im just approaching discussion here as just that—discussion. I don’t want to excuse anything or lessen impact. What I’m exploring is: if God meant it, what does that say about obedience, conscience, and how God Himself works?

The truth is I don’t know how to resolve this, and I’m not sure a clean resolution exists. I’m not saying the command was good or understandable—only that the text portrays it as real, horrifying, and intentional, and I wouldn’t feel honest trying to smooth that away.

And I'm just saying another way to resolve it is to conclude that it didn't come from a god, but that humans invented the story.

[Limnor]

That’s true, and I’ve often wondered if that is why people leave God completely when they leave the LDS church. A trust has been broken...

No, when someone says they don't believe in supernatural entities, saying their disbelief must be due to a "broken trust" is like saying the reason you don't believe in Santa Claus as an adult is because Santa Claus failed to bring you a pony when you were 12. He betrayed you!! So your response is to turn your back on him.

I don't believe in a god because, regardless of the stories I learned in my youth, the evidence does not support the existence of supernatural entities. End of story.

Imposing reasoning that implies disbelief is caused by a 'betrayal' of some sort is a story a believer might create but it sounds like nothing more than the believer imposing their position onto the nonbeliever. That may not be your intent, but it comes across that way.

That’s fair, and thanks for calling that out. I wasn’t intending to explain your disbelief. I am sorry for trying to do so.

Something else I was thinking was that the same thing I’ve said above could apply to Joseph—but I think Joseph just copied the dilemma.