God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Fence Sitter]

Over the years participating on this board, I have seen so many examples of this truth:

Trolls can write crooked with straight lines.

I think it would be interesting to hear where others might come from as they consider this truth. First of all, are we willing to accept—if there is a troll—that he would “write crooked with straight lines”? It would be interesting, just like in hopscotch, to see whether we can actually get to square one, or the first jump.

Obviously, I wouldn’t ask the question if I didn’t have an opinion. The problem is, if I present mine—as usual—the troll will “hop” all over the place simply trying to make me look stupid or nonsensical, etc.

So, what are some of your thoughts? Hypothetically speaking, if there is a troll, can/does he write crooked with straight lines?

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseam in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and the priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

I’m going to stand back and watch, learn, and listen.

[Limnor]

Over the years participating on this board, I have seen so many examples of this truth:

Trolls can write crooked with straight lines.

I think it would be interesting to hear where others might come from as they consider this truth. First of all, are we willing to accept—if there is a troll—that he would “write crooked with straight lines”? It would be interesting, just like in hopscotch, to see whether we can actually get to square one, or the first jump.

Obviously, I wouldn’t ask the question if I didn’t have an opinion. The problem is, if I present mine—as usual—the troll will “hop” all over the place simply trying to make me look stupid or nonsensical, etc.

So, what are some of your thoughts? Hypothetically speaking, if there is a troll, can/does he write crooked with straight lines?

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseam in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and the priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

I’m going to stand back and watch, learn, and listen.

Haha perfect!

[Gadianton]

Sudden thought, gad—how about something like this: the seed and promise—and everything associated with it—cannot be secured by obedience, sacrifice, strategy, or even correct theology. If the seed survives, it survives only because God sustains it, not because Abraham performed the right act. The message, if there is one, isn’t “trust God and things will work out,” but something harsher and maybe cleaner: the promise was never yours to keep alive in the first place.

You mean the promise was the promise, and all the rest is human agents coming to grips with it as they will, but the promise was inevitable?

[Limnor]

Sudden thought, gad—how about something like this: the seed and promise—and everything associated with it—cannot be secured by obedience, sacrifice, strategy, or even correct theology. If the seed survives, it survives only because God sustains it, not because Abraham performed the right act. The message, if there is one, isn’t “trust God and things will work out,” but something harsher and maybe cleaner: the promise was never yours to keep alive in the first place.

You mean the promise was the promise, and all the rest is human agents coming to grips with it as they will, but the promise was inevitable?

I’m not sure “inevitable” is quite right. Abraham learns he can’t sustain the promise at all—which means God must.

I spent some time thinking through this today—and comparing the thought with Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, and Barth.It turns out this line of thought sits within an established theological tradition, even if it isn’t always highlighted.

What I’ve been thinking is that Abraham had been promised and given this seed—he didn’t ask for it, never prayed for it, didn’t do anything to earn it. And then he is told that he must kill it. The seed therefore cannot be held through the same method and reasoning—not by not by obedience or sacrifice. Abraham can do nothing to retain Isaac and the promise.

The promise is fulfilled in Isaac’s birth, but Isaac’s future life—and the promised nation with him—are genuinely out of Abraham’s hands. If the promise is realized, it will only be because God gives life again.

That’s the discovery—not that the promise was inevitable (at least to Abraham), but that God alone gives and takes life, and the promise was never something Abraham could control.

[Limnor]

So in reference to LDS theology, the idea that God alone gives and takes life and the promise cannot be secured by obedience cuts against LDS authority and theology. Mormonism can’t and doesn’t leave Abraham in the dark, because a promise that depends on God alone is devastating to a system in which obedience, worthiness, and progression are central.

[bill4long]

The thing is, humans argue about all this stuff. And some are obviously smarter than others, especially when it comes to assessing objective evidence and truth claims.

At the end of the day, no matter how smart or enlightened or stupid you are, you're feeling around in the dark. Or you wouldn't be jerking around on forums like this. (Yeah, I know the plural of forum is fora. Latin.)

If there is a bliss that God/gods enjoy, this world is garbage. Everyone knows that. The world is a ghetto...

Relax, have a drink and enjoy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptIcert_Ra8



Shulem (bless you), before you jerk this post to the other space, it really is a philosophically relevant statement germane to the topic. Or not.

[malkie]

So in reference to LDS theology, the idea that God alone gives and takes life and the promise cannot be secured by obedience cuts against LDS authority and theology. Mormonism can’t and doesn’t leave Abraham in the dark, because a promise that depends on God alone is devastating to a system in which obedience, worthiness, and progression are central.

Are you saying that, in such a case, is reward purely arbitrary, is at the whim of the god who is the creator/implementor/manager of the creation? Attempts to divine god's will are futile, as are attempts to curry favour, because these "performances" are disregarded, and so are essentially meaningless? Then if what we think of as good - pleasing to the god - is of no account, that suggests that likewise "evil" is meaningless as far as our relationship with god is concerned.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the implications?

[Marcus]

Over the years participating on this board, I have seen so many examples of this truth:

Trolls can write crooked with straight lines.

I think it would be interesting to hear where others might come from as they consider this truth. First of all, are we willing to accept—if there is a troll—that he would “write crooked with straight lines”? It would be interesting, just like in hopscotch, to see whether we can actually get to square one, or the first jump.

Obviously, I wouldn’t ask the question if I didn’t have an opinion. The problem is, if I present mine—as usual—the troll will “hop” all over the place simply trying to make me look stupid or nonsensical, etc.

So, what are some of your thoughts? Hypothetically speaking, if there is a troll, can/does he write crooked with straight lines?

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseam in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and the priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

I’m going to stand back and watch, learn, and listen.

Nicely done!!

[Limnor]

So in reference to LDS theology, the idea that God alone gives and takes life and the promise cannot be secured by obedience cuts against LDS authority and theology. Mormonism can’t and doesn’t leave Abraham in the dark, because a promise that depends on God alone is devastating to a system in which obedience, worthiness, and progression are central.

Are you saying that, in such a case, is reward purely arbitrary, is at the whim of the god who is the creator/implementor/manager of the creation? Attempts to divine god's will are futile, as are attempts to curry favour, because these "performances" are disregarded, and so are essentially meaningless? Then if what we think of as good - pleasing to the god - is of no account, that suggests that likewise "evil" is meaningless as far as our relationship with god is concerned.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the implications?

I don’t think this makes reward arbitrary or goodness meaningless. It’s not that God acts on whim, or that good and evil don’t matter, it’s that neither good nor evil work as leverage over God. Trying to curry favor fails not because God is capricious, but because life and promise aren’t transactional in the first place.

What drops away is performance as leverage, and what remains is goodness as participation in reality—how one lives once leverage is gone—not as a way of securing treasure, but as truth.

There is probably more that we could discuss about the implications, like what that freely given life means, but it’s late. More tomorrow.

[Gadianton]

Well, technically, authoritarian regimes aren't transactional either. Does Vladimir Putin need to make good on any promises? Authoritarians may become transactional quickly if they ever feel danger, but God is never in danger. Autocrats prize loyalty above talent and competency and reign "loyalists" in by promising more than they ask in return. Once suckered into a role one is unqualified for, the "perks" come only by the grace of the autocrat. Once in this position, how to please the autocrat? Bargaining is off the table. Groveling and pleading may sorta work but not really as it shows weakness. Competency in the role might work to an extent as long as it doesn't make the autocrat look bad. It seems to me to be the same sort of mental gymnastics a person does when considering how to please God: I can't be too obvious in my prayers, I can't earn the reward I've already been given and so I can't try too hard to be good either, I can continue to be loyal and certainly must be willing to sacrifice myself for the autocrat if asked, because the leverage is one way and the punishment of the autocrat will be worse than the sacrifice.