God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

Both 'sides' should admit that “true/inspired/crooked/straight” are vague and do not admit razor‑sharp cutoffs.

Then back to my question, who is going to decide what that threshold is as we look at all the surrounding parameters associated with the proposition that God can write straight with crooked lines?

Lines are straight by definition. It may be impossible to draw a perfectly straight line in the real world, but we know what a straight line is. Mathematically, there is an absolute cut off. Any slight deviation would be obvious in the equation for a line. Even in fancy geometry or topology, the only way you'll get a straight line to be a crooked line is by equivocating, poorly defining your terms. You might as well ask if the number "5" can ever be the number "6".

The beard fallacy doesn't apply to any and every situation. Mathematically, we know exactly what a line is. However, mathematically, we have no idea what a beard is. Perhaps fuzzy set theorists might but, logic can't define a beard in terms of the number of hairs.

And the Lord asked me, 'What do you see, Amos?' 'A plumb line,' I replied. Then the Lord said, 'Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel; I will spare them no longer'

If we're going to ask how many hairs makes a beard, then we might ask exactly how far could Israel stray from God's plumb line before he destroyed them? What was the exact cutoff point? If each sin represents a stick, when do the sticks become a heap such that God's wrath says, "no more!" God is making a black and white decision, leave them alone, or destroy them, when he can't even tell us how many hairs make a beard! Do you think in God's 5d chess, or 5d geometry, that he has the answer to the number of hairs that make a beard, such that he knows exactly when a person should enter the Celestial Kingdom vs. the Terrestrial?

[Limnor]

Does this mean the game is over? Hope so, cause I’m already working on the satirical take.

[MG 2.0]

Does this mean the game is over? Hope so, cause I’m already working on the satirical take.

Why would you do that I wonder?

Personally I was hoping for a bit more 'fleshing out' in regards to the various 'props' put on stage and Hoppy Taws tossed onto the grid. I don't know that Jersey Girl has had an opportunity to contribute. Initially she mentioned that she might have some things to say. There may be others.

You're not the only player.

A satirical response would be more or less a derail. I, for one, would not appreciate it at this point. I can't actually force anything though. That much should be obvious.

Whatever happens at this point I've learned a few things along the way and hope I've spurred some thought in others.

We'll see what happens, huh? If you must go the satirical route, give it a bit more time (please?) before you impress us with your abilities/skill and wit.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Does this mean the game is over? Hope so, cause I’m already working on the satirical take.

Why would you do that I wonder?

Personally I was hoping for a bit more 'fleshing out' in regards to the various 'props' put on stage and Hoppy Taws tossed onto the grid. I don't know that Jersey Girl has had an opportunity to contribute. Initially she mentioned that she might have some things to say. There may be others.

You're not the only player.

A satirical response would be more or less a derail. I, for one, would not appreciate it at this point. I can't actually force anything though. That much should be obvious.

Whatever happens at this point I've learned a few things along the way and hope I've spurred some thought in others.

We'll see what happens, huh? If you must go the satirical route, give it a bit more time (please?) before you impress us with your abilities/skill and wit.

Regards,
MG

The reason I’m considering satire is because, from my perspective, the rules of the game feel unstable and a bit contrived, even though the conversation itself has been genuinely worthwhile. Satire is sometimes how I test whether a framework holds together once its assumptions are clear. Plus it’s entertaining.

But sure, I hear the concern and I’m not interested in shutting the discussion down, so I’ll refrain.

[malkie]

Does this mean the game is over? Hope so, cause I’m already working on the satirical take.

For some of us it was over before it began!

[Limnor]

Does this mean the game is over? Hope so, cause I’m already working on the satirical take.

For some of us it was over before it began!

Now I’m interested to know why—did you know it was going to go this way the entire time?

[malkie]

Does this mean the game is over? Hope so, cause I’m already working on the satirical take.

For some of us it was over before it began!

Now I’m interested to know why—did you know it was going to go this way the entire time?

No prescience was involved. I read the OP when it was posted, and first few replies. It was clear to me from the start that this was not a game I was interested in playing. Along the way I've peeked at the thread to see if anything piqued my interest, but concluded by about page 5 or 6 that the topic had peaked.

I looked in again around page 10, saw one of your comments and one by Dean Robbers (you know that this is Gad, I assume, and why he is so called), and dropped a comment on each because I thought I had something relevant to say. A subsequent comment by MG reminded me that I had inadvertently forgotten the existence of the game and the rules, and so I restricted myself, until my penultimate comment that you just quoted, to replying to direct comments on my earlier comments to you & Gad. I hope that makes sense!

Hence my reference to the game being over before it began, which was true for me, and potentially for others as well.

[Philo Sofee]

Trolly problem aside it also sanctions and approves of the desire to be allowed to step in front of a moving truck immediately after baptism because as Renlund said, "I will never be as clean as I am now".

He obviously, I think, has no idea how repentance works then.......

[Philo Sofee]

Once God is fully non-personal and outcomes are morally irrelevant, it’s hard to see what finally gives our “simple rules” authority rather than just practicality. I think Tolkien, at least, has some bearing here. He seems to hold that while we’re not responsible for outcomes, outcomes still matter.

This comment was particularly helpful, and I appreciated the way you used Tolkien to illustrate your point. I’m still thinking through the implications, but the way you introduced the concept was genuinely edifying as it is pushing me to think more carefully about why “simple rules” feel authoritative in daily life rather than merely useful.

Yes, no hurry at all intended amigo... I'm right there with ya, and knockin me ole noggin with the same thinking things through. We'll get through it together.... it's not a subject to rush through, and to be quite honest, I am thankful that MG opened this up. I haven't been in the mood for this kind of stuff for a while, and now that I have become a Tolkien fan, it has opened me up in ways I could not possibly have anticipated, which is pretty exciting, but I gotta move slow. So much interesting stuff to think on from former Mormon apologists days, and how Tolkien tempers, adds to, or/and subtracts from what I thought I knew and understood. It's a growing period for me, so this is terrific to be mulling it all over with so many cool and great minds here.

[Philo Sofee]

Gadianton:
There is a ton of interesting stuff in your post and I realize I've gone in too many directions. I'm at a disadvantage because I could never finish Lord of the Rings, my fault. I don't know what happens.

No, no. There is no reason to apologize, not the idea I was trying to lead to at all. I agree, there is a lot here, and I gotta go slow with it as well. I sort of did a data dump with what I am familiar with in TOlkien just to get it down for the time being. I will get to your other points also, but I did not at all try to imply you were going in too many directions. We're all trying to figure it out and I find I am much more in agreement than disagreement with much of this, it's just that Tolkien has some interesting ......... what? Shall I call them sideroads into it that gives me pause? I know, he was absolutely Catholic and even claimed his work was a Catholic work, but he is decidedly not preaching their doctrine. Perhaps he meant all inclusive an approach with morality and how God deals with life, and what happens as the characters (who can be seen as us ourselves) react, etc. So, I mean, sincerely, I am working my way through it all also, so I'm takin it slow now, and will probably try to take one point at a time, because in the past you have brought so much to the table that is so valuable, I want to soak it all in as we try figuring things out. I really don;t want my Tolkien use to bother anyone, but I'm not going to quit using him either because I have discovered such a weirdly wonderful source of light in actual fiction it blows my mind. I had never supposed before I would find this kind of trasure, so it's pretty stinkin cool to me. SO, lets just keep truckin along. I'm loving this all this with all you guys n gals.