DiscussMormonism.com

mentalgymnast wrote:

Themis wrote:
Are you really interested in thoughtful alternatives?

Yes.

Regards,
MG

You have been given ways but refuse to deal with them, and ignore the absurdities you bring up. When you do that I will consider you interested.

Themis wrote:You...[pass] up the one alternative...which is showing up in person or sending angels.

Is that a viable alternative in your mind? If so, do you think God has done this at anytime in the world's history? When? Where? How and in what form?

If God did show up in person do you think this was the smartest thing God could have done? Others seem to be saying there ought to be better ways for God to work in the world.

Regards,
MG

Themis wrote:You have been given ways but refuse to deal with them...

Not that I've seen so far. Just clever avoidance of the question. But rather obvious.

Again,

What are a few alternatives that you can think of in which the Creator of the Universe could/would choose from to communicate with his creations in matters of eternal importance to their immortal souls?

Regards,
MG

Themis wrote:You...ignore the absurdities you bring up.

Which are?

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:Is that a viable alternative in your mind? If so, do you think God has done this at anytime in the world's history? When? Where? How and in what form?

I think it's obvious God hasn't talked to anyone, but it's you who claims to believe the Bible and Book of Mormon. Both have examples of what we are talking about. They also show you as very inconsistent.

If God did show up in person do you think this was the smartest thing God could have done?

It's a hell of a lot better then your biggest absurdity of God wanting only one person to talk to and tell everyone else. Then testing to see if they will believe this guy over all the other guys instead of being reasonable and rejecting them all.

You are still ignoring your own example in that hope and agency would not be affected by God showing up. Maybe if he had a burning sword.

The only faith it would affect is blind faith in God existing. Do you really think God wants to test and reward those who are the most gullible, or just the lucky gullible ones who pick the right guy? That is what you are suggesting with your initial post.

Others seem to be saying there ought to be better ways for God to work in the world.

No they are saying there ought to be better ways then God speaking to one person and telling everyone else. Apparently you don't seem to understand the issues here.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Themis wrote:You have been given ways but refuse to deal with them...

Not that I've seen so far. Just clever avoidance of the question. But rather obvious.

Again,

What are a few alternatives that you can think of in which the Creator of the Universe could/would choose from to communicate with his creations in matters of eternal importance to their immortal souls?

Regards,
MG

Now you are just being blatantly and stupidly dishonest. It might be advisable if you want to say something hasn't been brought up not to post just before it that you see it has been brought up.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Themis wrote:You...ignore the absurdities you bring up.

Which are?

Regards,
MG

I will repeat it for you

Why assume? It's not like it would affect hope or agency. You already believe people have seen and still rejected God as well as many who never passed any test before God/angels showed up. The only faith/belief it would affect is blind faith in God actually existing. How is this a valuable test? People make all kind of s*** up and many people believe them. You in reality are saying this is a good trait God wants to see if people will do. This may be the most absurd example of them all.

mentalgymnast wrote:Just HOW do you think God should interact with ALL his creatures on this planet?

Maybe a little more specificity than the first time around.

MG, I know you were saying this to DrW, but I'd like to take a shot.

It's not my problem. I can't create entire universes. Your imagined God can, and did, if one of the thousands of various creation mythologies is to be believed. It's not my responsibility to tell you how a magical being in the sky, who can create entire universes, can communicate with its own creations.

What I'm telling you is that to postulate that such a being would choose the precise method, which lends itself so perfectly to being used by charlatans and usurpers to gain power and other advantages over their fellow humans, to communicate eternally-important truths that we really need to hear and understand, is absurd.

So far your primary counter to this claim is to lay the onus at our feet to explain how precisely God should do it in a way that isn't absurd. Dude, that's not our problem. If the claim really is absurd, and not true, then it matters not whether we can adequately ponder the counterfactual what-ifs and invent a non-absurd if equally imagined alternative.

What you're saying is our responsibility in countering the myth-makers is to spin a more plausible myth. That right there is absurd.

Sethbag wrote:
What you're saying is our responsibility in countering the myth-makers is to spin a more plausible myth. That right there is absurd.

It is a common tactic both MG and Kevin employ, to wit, asking others to provide better explanations for assumptions they themselves are presenting. I have listened to Dan Peterson use some of the same line of reasoning in a fireside defending Mormonism. There is a thread going on at MAD here where the OP points out how bad both the catalyst and missing papyri theories are for the Book of Abraham, in which many respondents demand he present a better theory to replace the bad ones.

Here's a better theory that fits all this nonsense.

It's man made.

Sethbag wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:Just HOW do you think God should interact with ALL his creatures on this planet?

Maybe a little more specificity than the first time around.

MG, I know you were saying this to DrW, but I'd like to take a shot.

Hey Sethbag, thanks for responding. It was your thoughts I was specifically interested in.

Sethbag wrote:It's not my problem. I can't create entire universes.

Fair enough.

Sethbag wrote:Your imagined God can, and did, if one of the thousands of various creation mythologies is to be believed.

Any God that is being recognized/worshipped and for the most part remains inscrutable/hidden is by definition going to be in a position in which it will be necessary to use a bit of imagination to try and even conceptualize what that creator/God would have as His/Her characteristics, elements of being and attributes, etc. And yes, by definition, a creator/God, it could be safely assumed, would create entire universes. But not the mythologies. Man does a good job at that.

Sethbag wrote:It's not my responsibility to tell you how a magical being in the sky, who can create entire universes, can communicate with its own creations.

I know it's not your responsibility. I'm only interested in alternatives to what we see in a world such as it is. The only alternative I'm hearing so far is...no God. What I'm asking is...let's assume for the sake of argument...that there is a creator/God who is concerned with our welfare and eternal happiness/progress. How would YOU have this God do things BETTER? Apparently the creator/God, if there is such a being/thing, is...at least in your opinion...doing a screwed up job of managing the universe He created. How could He do it BETTER? That's all I'm asking. Use your imagination...

Sethbag wrote:What I'm telling you is that to postulate that such a being would choose the precise method, which lends itself so perfectly to being used by charlatans and usurpers to gain power and other advantages over their fellow humans, to communicate eternally-important truths that we really need to hear and understand, is absurd.

I don't think that it's absurd in the sense that what are the alternatives? Again, I ask you, what are some alternatives that you can think of in which God could communicate better with the human race? Internet? Radio? Television?

Only problem with that is that there are a lot of folks that still wouldn't get the message...and where's the fairness in that?

Sethbag wrote:So far your primary counter to this claim is to lay the onus at our feet to explain how precisely God should do it in a way that isn't absurd.

I'm simply asking you to use your imagination. So far, no takers. I do see a problem that would cause concern in trying to go this direction though. You would then have to accept the possibility that there IS a creator/God. And just that admittance in and of itself causes one to then ask the question..."Well then, isn't God ALREADY doing the best thing possible? The better plan?" After all, He's God. The BIG guy. By dissing God and saying that everything is screwed up you then are hard pressed not to disbelieve in in a creator/God. You have no choice as far as I can see it. If God is God and the world IS what it is, then God is already doing the best that can be done under the circumstances to provide for the eternal welfare/happiness of His creations and there is no better way.

BUT, maybe there is...and that's where I'm interested in your imaginative thinking. Afterall, it is you that is saying that if there is a creator/God, He/She/It has totally screwed things up. So in a way, the onus IS on you to come up with something better...or go down in defeat and simply default to "no God".

Sethbag wrote:Dude, that's not our problem.

I'm thinking that if you're going to diss God you ought to be able to come up with something better than mild to moderate nihilism views. I would assume you're not a card carrying full blown nihilist. Mild to moderate leanings though? If you go with no God...it seems like you'd be somewhere along that spectrum. You should feel absolutely comfortable in using your imaginative processes in coming up with some ways God could better communicate with his human creations... especially knowing that there's no God that is going to get in your face and laugh at you or correct you.

As far as absurdity goes, don't let that get in the way. When we use our imaginations we sometimes have to ask the "what if" without getting too hung up on what we perceive to be as the absurdities. Bill Gates did it. I'm just asking you to do it in reference to how God could better get His act together in communicating with all of His children from way back when to this moment in time.

Regards,
MG