mentalgymnast wrote:
...There are many different communities built by humans throughout the span of human development and history. Many of them quite different from each other. Would that not be a possibility in a hoped for hereafter? Obviously, we're all not alike here. Why would one think we would be 'there'?
In LDS theology it is the covenant relationship with "one greater than they all" that creates a celestial kingdom/community. Indeed it is ALL about relationship with those that are relatable specifically to us as individuals.
I don't see how this is even possible with an 'abstract god'...
Mentalgymnast would like to keep the non-LDS away from the LDS so that he doesn't have to associate with those he thinks he is superior to. Reminds me of that joke where St. Peter explains they keep the Mormons in a separate room. Why?
"Because they think they're the only ones here."
Lol. Only a mental gymnastic specialist would insist a god isn't possible unless that god is a bigot like himself.
Mentalgymnast would like his comments like the one I quoted above treated seriously. Which I did. But, let's try again. It would be interesting to have mentalgymnast explain his comment about separation of people in the afterlife based on who he thinks is his equal. For mentalgymnast, to assist in his understanding of how his post reads, here is the definition of a bigot, from Merriam-Webster:
":a narrow-minded person who obstinately adheres to their own opinions and prejudices,
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership"
Expressing the opinion that a god should arrange the afterlife so that mentalgymnast can maintain his separation from people not like him is a fantastically extreme level of bigotry.
He could start by explaining this:
mentalgymnast wrote:
...celestial kingdom/community... is ALL about relationship with those that are relatable specifically to us as individuals.
So no, I don't think we can say a God with a body is more relatable than a God without a body without more information.
That's where LDS theology and the King Follett discourse come into the picture. We worship a God who has had common experience with us. He has experienced pain and suffering. Happiness and joy. He has overcome all things. He is our perfect example. Jesus became incarnate and experienced the physicality of a 'fallen world' with all of its ups and downs.
Zeus and Thor were 'god born'. There's a difference, isn't there in your comparison/analogy?
In LDS theology God wasn't born a God. He is relatable because He knows us and has experienced what we experience and we can progressively get to know Him and become more like Him.
He is not the classical 'nebulous god' that one has a difficult wrapping their mind around or being able to relate to except for finding him in your heart.
Regards,
MG
I’m not sure embodiment alone determines relatability. A being could share our physical experience but still be distant or indifferent, while a being without a body could still understand and relate to us through knowledge and love.
That's where LDS theology and the King Follett discourse come into the picture. We worship a God who has had common experience with us. He has experienced pain and suffering. Happiness and joy. He has overcome all things. He is our perfect example. Jesus became incarnate and experienced the physicality of a 'fallen world' with all of its ups and downs.
Zeus and Thor were 'god born'. There's a difference, isn't there in your comparison/analogy?
In LDS theology God wasn't born a God. He is relatable because He knows us and has experienced what we experience and we can progressively get to know Him and become more like Him.
He is not the classical 'nebulous god' that one has a difficult wrapping their mind around or being able to relate to except for finding him in your heart.
Regards,
MG
I’m not sure embodiment alone determines relatability. A being could share our physical experience but still be distant or indifferent, while a being without a body could still understand and relate to us through knowledge and love.
God as portrayed in the Old Testament is a real a**hole. Jesus in the New Testament is better. God in the Book of Mormon instructs that Laban should be slain over some plates with information that an all-knowing God could re-tell Nephi if he wanted to--so those plates were meaningless, or just an excuse for Book of Mormon God to kill somebody. I'm sorry, but I cannot relate to that a**hole at all, body or no body, "similar" experience to mine or not. Just a major league a**hole.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
It may all come down to relationship with those of the same 'species'. It is the relationships that build community. That may well be how the universe itself works in regard to intelligent life and progression.
Why would relatability necessarily depend on being a shared species? What explains those who don’t make it to godhood? Are they no longer the same species?
...He is not the classical 'nebulous god' that one has a difficult wrapping their mind around or being able to relate to except for finding him in your heart...
Huh. Previously,
mg's AI wrote:
...I am of the opinion that the things of God can only be known by the Spirit of God...
With this and all the contradictions that have been pointed out, I don't get the sense mentalgymnast really believes what he says. Either that or he still is posting AI without understanding it. The real irony is that his efforts to push the LDS church fail miserably because of his approach.
Patriarchalists don’t need to be coherent. They only really believe in hierarchy. Anything can be said or manufactured as a convenience to maintain their system of power and control over others and their belief in the system.
Literally nothing can shake their faith in this system because it gives them identity and purpose- and perhaps power, real or imagined. That’s the only true thing they’ll ever defend, even to their own detriment.
Nothing is relevant outside of that system. They’ll do or say anything at any time to defend this system. That’s that. MG would suffer a mental collapse if he were capable of walking away. But he’s not, and like a dog returning to its vomit, a patriarchalist will return to his power fantasy and act out. It’s inevitable.
It may all come down to relationship with those of the same 'species'. It is the relationships that build community. That may well be how the universe itself works in regard to intelligent life and progression.
Why would relatability necessarily depend on being a shared species? What explains those who don’t make it to godhood? Are they no longer the same species?
Yes. We are all children of the same Father. That's Mormon Doctrine. As I said earlier it is this relationship based connection we have with God that makes him God. Without that relationship He would not be God. God is because God creates. It's in His very nature of Being.
Can you picture a God who is not a creator God?
How one God is connected with another God within the scope of LDS doctrine is a.poimt.of.speculation/conjecture. But the basic premise makes sense to me. We are eternal beings. Some who/which are capable of doing astronomical (literally) things.
Progression, whatever that looks like, simply makes sense. Compared with stagnation anyways. I don't think I'm a harp kind of guy. It seems to me that God would somehow let us know and/or give us a chance, somewhere along the line, to be all that we can be.
That he is the administrator of the plan that allows for this while developing a trust/relationship with Him is what makes Him 'all powerful'.
That's where LDS theology and the King Follett discourse come into the picture. We worship a God who has had common experience with us. He has experienced pain and suffering. Happiness and joy. He has overcome all things. He is our perfect example. Jesus became incarnate and experienced the physicality of a 'fallen world' with all of its ups and downs.
Zeus and Thor were 'god born'. There's a difference, isn't there in your comparison/analogy?
In LDS theology God wasn't born a God. He is relatable because He knows us and has experienced what we experience and we can progressively get to know Him and become more like Him.
He is not the classical 'nebulous god' that one has a difficult wrapping their mind around or being able to relate to except for finding him in your heart.
Regards,
MG
I’m not sure embodiment alone determines relatability. A being could share our physical experience but still be distant or indifferent, while a being without a body could still understand and relate to us through knowledge and love.
Why would relatability necessarily depend on being a shared species? What explains those who don’t make it to godhood? Are they no longer the same species?
Yes. We are all children of the same Father. That's Mormon Doctrine. As I said earlier it is this relationship based connection we have with God that makes him God. Without that relationship He would not be God. God is because God creates. It's in His very nature of Being.
Can you picture a God who is not a creator God?
How one God is connected with another God within the scope of LDS doctrine is a.poimt.of.speculation/conjecture. But the basic premise makes sense to me. We are eternal beings. Some who/which are capable of doing astronomical (literally) things.
Progression, whatever that looks like, simply makes sense. Compared with stagnation anyways. I don't think I'm a harp kind of guy. It seems to me that God would somehow let us know and/or give us a chance, somewhere along the line, to be all that we can be.
That he is the administrator of the plan that allows for this while developing a trust/relationship with Him is what makes Him 'all powerful'.
For us.
Regards,
MG
So what happens to those who don’t make it to godhood? Are they still the same species?
Patriarchalists don’t need to be coherent. They only really believe in hierarchy.
Way to shrink wrap everything dude. Yep, we're all dumb and stupid patriarchalists (had to check the spelling since I never use that word).
So the flavors of the dayto refer to those that believe are patriarchalists and bigots. Got it.
Why in the world do you not have any faith man? That is, in the intelligence of a thinking/intelligent believer that thinks differently than you?
The common thread, at the end of the day, among critics, is that those that believe have been duped, are stupid, or can't pull their head out of the sand (being polite). How is that not 'holier than thou'?
Yes. We are all children of the same Father. That's Mormon Doctrine. As I said earlier it is this relationship based connection we have with God that makes him God. Without that relationship He would not be God. God is because God creates. It's in His very nature of Being.
Can you picture a God who is not a creator God?
How one God is connected with another God within the scope of LDS doctrine is a.poimt.of.speculation/conjecture. But the basic premise makes sense to me. We are eternal beings. Some who/which are capable of doing astronomical (literally) things.
Progression, whatever that looks like, simply makes sense. Compared with stagnation anyways. I don't think I'm a harp kind of guy. It seems to me that God would somehow let us know and/or give us a chance, somewhere along the line, to be all that we can be.
That he is the administrator of the plan that allows for this while developing a trust/relationship with Him is what makes Him 'all powerful'.
For us.
Regards,
MG
So what happens to those who don’t make it to godhood? Are they still the same species?
I've answered that. We've mentioned King Follett. Let's now mention Kingdoms of Glory. For all those that are children of God and have not committed the unpardonable sin.
Rejecting God in the light of day having known Him.
