God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

27 And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen.

Would you agree that the word 'as' makes all the difference?

I've always had a hard time with the Devil and a pitchfork standing amidst the flames of a literal burning hell.

Regards,
MG

Earlier I said it may be a metaphor. I don’t think of it as the devil having any sort of reign. There is a lot of caricature out there that I don’t agree with.

[Limnor]

I want to be clear about something. I don’t spend my time thinking about who’s going to hell or who isn’t.

But God does, right? Thus, He has a focus on who is going to be eternally scorched. Ouch!

Mean God.

What kind of flames are we talking about? Burning plastic? Burning wood? Nuclear firestorm?

I think traditional Christians sometimes have to tie themselves in knots taking the Bible strictly/only literally.

Regards,
MG

For me it’s meaningful—and not necessarily as literal as you seem to want me to make it—to think about Jesus’ warning about Gehenna as very near to Him speaking of the Father’s care for sparrows. I think that means “fear” has a nuance, and shouldn’t collapse into God burning plastic. We’re told God takes no pleasure in anyone’s destruction. Biblical fire imagery reads like purification, which suggests to me the idea of God being that purification and being within the fire exposes the true “you.”

[Dr Moore]

Not going to read 123 pages of this thread. Just stopped in to say the premise is absurd.

Who is the arbiter of straight vs crooked sublines and the final so called straight drawing? It’s a subjective framework that accomplishes only one end: infinite wiggle room for being wrong. The notion of using “crooked lines” to “draw straight” is orthogonal to virtually all pronouncements regarding the prophetic mantle in LDS theology. If prophet claims X and X is later shown to be wrong, it’s negative evidence that he is what he claims to be. It is not ambiguous evidence.

[MG 2.0]

To clarify board rules. Is it OK or not OK to refer a poster over to the AI megathread? That is, of course, doing so without posting ANY actual content of the mega thread within any external thread/current thread.

I want to make sure I follow the rules with exactness. I do think, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be OK to point someone over to that thread and do with it (the information provided) what they will.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

To clarify board rules. Is it OK or not OK to refer a poster over to the AI megathread? That is, of course, doing so without posting ANY actual content of the mega thread within any external thread/current thread.

I want to make sure I follow the rules with exactness. I do think, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be OK to point someone over to that thread and do with it (the information provided) what they will.

Regards,
MG

You've had this clarified many many times already. You promised to not continue moaning about AI. Yet here we go again. Are you having memory issues or are you just not a man of your word?

[Dr. Shades]

To clarify board rules. Is it OK or not OK to refer a poster over to the AI megathread?

[MODERATOR NOTE: NOT OK on any viewable thread. Only OK via private message.]

That is, of course, doing so without posting ANY actual content of the mega thread within any external thread/current thread.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Irrelevant. Refer via private message or do not refer at all. There is no third option.]

I want to make sure I follow the rules with exactness. I do think, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be OK to point someone over to that thread and do with it (the information provided) what they will.

[MODERATOR NOTE: It doesn't matter what you think ought or ought not to be.]

[malkie]

To clarify board rules. Is it OK or not OK to refer a poster over to the AI megathread?

[MODERATOR NOTE: NOT OK on any viewable thread. Only OK via private message.]

That is, of course, doing so without posting ANY actual content of the mega thread within any external thread/current thread.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Irrelevant. Refer via private message or do not refer at all. There is no third option.]

I want to make sure I follow the rules with exactness. I do think, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be OK to point someone over to that thread and do with it (the information provided) what they will.

[MODERATOR NOTE: It doesn't matter what you think ought or ought not to be.]

Surely your bishop will have a "cause" opened for your eventual canonization. Perhaps we shouldn't bother to wait for that formality: may we call you Venerable Dr Shades?

[Res Ipsa]

Not going to read 123 pages of this thread. Just stopped in to say the premise is absurd.

Who is the arbiter of straight vs crooked sublines and the final so called straight drawing? It’s a subjective framework that accomplishes only one end: infinite wiggle room for being wrong. The notion of using “crooked lines” to “draw straight” is orthogonal to virtually all pronouncements regarding the prophetic mantle in LDS theology. If prophet claims X and X is later shown to be wrong, it’s negative evidence that he is what he claims to be. It is not ambiguous evidence.

You’re right, of course. But it’s been a springboard for many interesting discussions that have little to do with lines of any shape.

[Marcus]

To clarify board rules. Is it OK or not OK to refer a poster over to the AI megathread?

[MODERATOR NOTE: NOT OK on any viewable thread. Only OK via private message.]

That is, of course, doing so without posting ANY actual content of the mega thread within any external thread/current thread.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Irrelevant. Refer via private message or do not refer at all. There is no third option.]

I want to make sure I follow the rules with exactness. I do think, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be OK to point someone over to that thread and do with it (the information provided) what they will.

[MODERATOR NOTE: It doesn't matter what you think ought or ought not to be.]

Brilliant. The troll has succeeded in getting a moderator to blatantly reference the AI thread in a non-AI thread, even though there is a mod note on a previous page, showing that a blatant reference to the AI thread was deleted from an earlier mentalgymnast post:

[Blatant reference to the A.I. megathread deleted]

I would report my post, Shades' post and mentalgymnast's post for "blatant reference to the A.I. megathread", but chasing one's tail eventually makes one's head hurt. How many times can mentalgymnast break this rule yet again without consequence?

[Dr. Shades]

Surely your bishop will have a "cause" opened for your eventual canonization. Perhaps we shouldn't bother to wait for that formality: may we call you Venerable Dr Shades?

Of course. :-)