Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Marcus]

No. If the bolded part is your "only constraint," then you can't add two more.

Aliens, along with any other imaginary things, are allowed, and "a creator god," while a part of your game creation, is not required to be included by anyone else.

I liked Sagan's book, "Contact." His concept of aliens was pretty well developed and quite interesting as a philosophical conceit.

However, the alien who delivers the Book of Answers to Everything to Scully and Mulder in one of the final X-files episodes, "The Lost Art of Forehead Sweat," was pretty damn entertaining... I'm torn.

Is this the alien who retrieved the book of answers from Elder Perry's briefcase?

Wait ... am I in the wrong thread?

Lol. One of the funniest parts of that x-files episode was the re-defining of the Mandela Effect as the mengele effect.

In other words, what briefcase? Elder Who??

[Philo Sofee]

And that’s easy to do. Diss someone’s arguments for God.

Please stop. I'm not dissing your arguments for God. I'm not even dissing your description of God. I'm saying that your God is not the same as the one that is generally described in the Abrahamic religions. So, when someone critiques your concept of God--as you describe it--they are not critiquing any and all conceptions of God.

Would you play along with the ‘constructed/constructive’ God I’ve asked for?

I'm not sure I understand what you want. Are you saying that you want me to make up a god that I don't believe in, so you can see if she measures up to the god that you think that you believe in?

You have his number all right...

[Res Ipsa]

LOL! Thanks, Marcus. I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at how much clever lawyering a church can do when it has a couple thousand years to do it. Maybe this is why we have so many Catholics on the Supreme Court.

I had to read this a few times before I understood how this works. So, God requires baptism for salvation, but God needs people to perform the ordinance. But the ordinance would be worthless if God retained the right to declare the ordinance invalid for any reason (or no reason). So, how does the Catholic church avoid the argument Sock Puppet is making -- that an omnipotent being cannot be restrained by the Priest that performs the baptism?
God binds the ordinance to the Priest, but he doesn't bind himself.

I think it's sophistry, but it's clever sophistry.

We could apply the same reasoning to Mormonism. God binds the ordinance of eternal marriage to temple workers. God binds the ordinance of baptism to certain priesthood holders, etc. Voila! We have a God that, substantively, gives part of his power to humans while retaining his omnipotence.

Man, those Catholic theologians are Goooooood!

Res Ipsa, I get the impression that you worked very hard to fit that Catholic statement back into Mormon thought. Perhaps a small misunderstanding caused or contributed to the problem. In Catholic context, baptism does not require a priest. It can be done by anybody. It is not a power other than God. God can save unbaptized people if God wants to. The statement suggests that is a possibility for people who did not reject baptism.

Hi Huck! I was doing my best not to think like a Mormon. Honest!

I know I oversimplified when I just referred to Priest, but I was trying not to over complicate the point I was trying to make. Let me try again. Baptisms are performed by humans on other humans. So, what does it mean to bind salvation to the sacrament of baptism?

[Gadianton]

Would it be so hard for a non religious person to not beat around the bush?

I don't think I'm beating around the bush. It's a very hard question.

So again (I’ve asked previously), let’s play ‘build a God’

What you're asking is difficult. I realize it's easy for you. What if we were to play 'let's build a skyscraper?' I have no doubts it would take you all of five minutes to design your building, because you're extraordinarily unaware of your limitations. But then assuming the building could even be completed, which it couldn't, thousands of occupants would die as it collapses into ruins. Assuming it doesn't burst into flames first.

The only way you can build a God is the only way you can build a skyscraper. "I want the best skyscraper that can possibly be built!" But that's a meaningless conversation. What specifics about God are you building? You don't have the first clue what a God should be like. And then to build your God, and subject billions of people to it, that's worse than building a skyscraper. Way worse. You don't have the competence to build a God. Neither do I.

And it's pointless to decide what you want God to be like, and then turn around and believe in that God because it "works for you".

[MG 2.0]

Please stop. I'm not dissing your arguments for God. I'm not even dissing your description of God. I'm saying that your God is not the same as the one that is generally described in the Abrahamic religions. So, when someone critiques your concept of God--as you describe it--they are not critiquing any and all conceptions of God.



I'm not sure I understand what you want. Are you saying that you want me to make up a god that I don't believe in, so you can see if she measures up to the god that you think that you believe in?

You have his number all right...

And the number is…drum roll. How about this number exercise Philo? Come up with just ONE:

Imagine a God you could believe in.

Build a ‘God’. It doesn’t need to be anything like what you might think the ‘Mormon God’ to be. Sky’s the limit. Actually the sky doesn’t have to be the limit.

Personality, characteristics, attributes, powers, limitations, etc.

Describe that God. Just assume for now that a creator God exists.

The only constraint/constant is that you cannot change anything about the world that we live in or the creatures that inhabit it, including humans. All the mayhem, disease, confusion, religions, addictions, etc., remain in place.

It is what it is.

No aliens allowed either. For the sake of this exercise. A creator God. The BIG Kahuna. Just this time. Go with it. With an imagination like yours it ought to be just plain fun.

I’m interested to see what you come up with.

Wanna play?

You would be the first! I’ve asked this question in one form another since page 53.

Don’t include anything or don’t leave anything out that someone might come back on you and either ridicule or take apart your ‘God Build 1.0’. Although if needed you can do a redo and go to ‘God 2.0’. Input from others is even allowed. Many minds make light work.

I’ve seen all the books on your shelf behind your desk at your home. On video anyway.

You’ve put in the time and effort to come to the conclusion that Mormon God didn't make sense for you. I mean that.

Build a better one. Remember, leave everything as it is on this Pale Blue Dot. Because it is what it is.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The only way you can build a God is the only way you can build a skyscraper. "I want the best skyscraper that can possibly be built!"

Not necessarily. It doesn’t have to be the ‘perfect God’.

Let’s see what Philo comes up with. He’s actually a pretty creative guy. Some of the stuff he’s done with wood is amazing if I’m remembering correctly. He’s got the mind for it. Kind of right brainy.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Res Ipsa, I get the impression that you worked very hard to fit that Catholic statement back into Mormon thought. Perhaps a small misunderstanding caused or contributed to the problem. In Catholic context, baptism does not require a priest. It can be done by anybody. It is not a power other than God. God can save unbaptized people if God wants to. The statement suggests that is a possibility for people who did not reject baptism.

That's my understanding also. It seems like a very Mormon approach to insist on knowing absolutely and therefore limiting their god to approaches available to humans. In the very little I've read of catholic theology, they simply don't go there.

I am not a believer in god, but I see catholic theology as a more consistent and realistic combination of knowledge and faith. They certainly don't seem to have the brash hubris exhibited by Mormon believers.

I read the catechism statement as humans saying they do their best to do things as their god has asked of them, because that's all they can do, being human and not divine, but also that there is nothing about their delineation of human efforts that limits or constrains anything their god chooses to do.

[Philo Sofee]

You have his number all right...

And the number is…drum roll. How about this number exercise Philo? Come up with just ONE:

Imagine a God you could believe in.

Build a ‘God’. It doesn’t need to be anything like what you might think the ‘Mormon God’ to be. Sky’s the limit. Actually the sky doesn’t have to be the limit.

Personality, characteristics, attributes, powers, limitations, etc.

Describe that God. Just assume for now that a creator God exists.

The only constraint/constant is that you cannot change anything about the world that we live in or the creatures that inhabit it, including humans. All the mayhem, disease, confusion, religions, addictions, etc., remain in place.

It is what it is.

No aliens allowed either. For the sake of this exercise. A creator God. The BIG Kahuna. Just this time. Go with it. With an imagination like yours it ought to be just plain fun.

I’m interested to see what you come up with.

Wanna play?

You would be the first! I’ve asked this question in one form another since page 53.

Don’t include anything or don’t leave anything out that someone might come back on you and either ridicule or take apart your ‘God Build 1.0’. Although if needed you can do a redo and go to ‘God 2.0’. Input from others is even allowed. Many minds make light work.

I’ve seen all the books on your shelf behind your desk at your home. On video anyway.

You’ve put in the time and effort to come to the conclusion that Mormon God didn't make sense for you. I mean that.

Build a better one. Remember, leave everything as it is on this Pale Blue Dot. Because it is what it is.

Regards,
MG

No, I don't want to waste my time on this superfluous game. Your God has already won the contest in your mind. We all already know that. Ours will fall short or be so different that you can use them as a foil to demonstrate the superiority of your imagined deity. It's so obvious what shenanigans you are up. I have more important things to do with my time MG. No offense intended amigo. Something like Tolkien's Eru Illuvatar would be considered were I to play...

[Moksha]

Elder Who??

Is that the episode where the good Doctor from Gallifrey converts?

[Morley]

Are you saying that you want me to make up a god that I don't believe in[?]

No. I’m asking you to imagine a God you COULD believe in.

Build a ‘God’. It doesn’t need to be anything like what you might think the ‘Mormon God’ to be. Sky’s the limit.

Personality, characteristics, attributes, powers, limitations, etc.

Describe that God. Just assume for a moment that a creator God exists.

The only constraint is that you cannot change anything about the world that we live in or the creatures that inhabit it, including humans.

It is what it is.

No aliens allowed. A creator God. Go with it. With an imagination like yours it ought to be just plain fun.

I’m interested to see what you come up with.

MG2.0: You go first.


Every portion of our lives is impacted by the organizations to which we belong. Organizations such as churches, clubs, jobs, and families define how we act, as well as how and where we live. They even tell us who we will love and live with. In order to live with and lead others in a successful society, we need to be able to understand the organizations that we are a part of.

Anyone who has taught organizational theory knows that there is no perfect model to explain how organizations organize or function. All theoretical models are effective in explaining these dynamics in some ways, but are deficient in others. None is good in all. Max Weber's bureaucratic model of how organizations work takes a different approach than Fredrick Taylor's scientific management theory. Classical theory tends to treat organizations as if they were machines, while organic theory approaches them as living entities. Contingency theory--well, you can guess what contingency theory does--takes a quite different approach from that of the open systems model.

MG, I would like you to come up with the single perfect model that could be used for teaching organizational theory. Create your own model, make it one that you can live with. It has to fit the world we live in and describe the organizations you live in and work with, as well as those that surround and impact us, day in and day out. It should work for and be understandable to those who come in contact with it.

As you told me to, somewhere in the assignment you’ll need to address ‘relevant personality, characteristics, attributes, powers, limitations, etc.’ You will also need to be able to compare and contrast how your model relates and competes with those of others.

This should fun for you. It will probably be even more much fun for you than building a god that I neither believe in nor want would be for me.

Go for it.




edit: Frickin grammar.