Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[MG 2.0]

Because you’re fundamentally a dishonest man. It is what it is.

That is not true. It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else repeats it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This thread had gone back on topic. I would like it to go that direction instead of veering off again.

Although I would like a determination from Shades in regards to my final question.

Thanks.

MG

[Marcus]

Gad called it exactly. After multiple times of the mods telling mg, in red, to stop breaking the rule, we get still more disruption from the mental gymnast:

...Got it. No wiggle room at all. I will conform to those wishes/rules...

and

...It's all about me apparently. The rules and expectations have become so narrow that it is very difficult for a person who is 'non echo chamber' to really get much of a word in without getting dog piled...

and

So as a clarification after Gadianton's post...if there is a conversation that starts on the A.I. thread that has nothing to do with A.I. or using A.I. as a source...and that conversation is directly applicable/relevant to another conversation on a different thread, that conversation cannot be brought over for ANY reason...

and

...Although I would like a determination from Shades in regards to my final question...

After a dozen final determinations, the disruptor wants a final determination. This is just trolling. Gad called it:

...[H]is motives for doing it were the problem. He only moved that over to continue his war with other thread participants. He quoted the part where I thanked him for contributing. After trying to derail the conversation for two weeks, he participated for five minutes, and then used his temporary good behavior as a way to continue with his overarching plot to disrupt...

Bolding added by me.

...The cautionary story for MG is more about establishing a long-term history of behavior...

Agreed. His history of behavior has determined his reputation, and as Doc has noted above, it's obvious.

[Marcus]

Bypassing the trolling, here is the conversation at its last point:

If Mormons go down one of these routes, it's closer to the simulation hypothesis I think. We're just one of countless others doing something similar. Convergent evolution means that humans could be the highest form of being in physical reality.

I’m trying to wrap my head around this and intrigued—what would this look like in an explanatory statement? How do you describe what kind of universe typical observers would find themselves in?

[MG 2.0]

Imagine if God rightly decided not to save anybody, and a hundred billion end up in hell, while in heaven there is only the love between three, as Augustine supposed. A thousand billion years later, nobody in hell has any idea what "love" is nor any concept of God, for that matter. That doesn't change the fact that presumably, God is still God, the brute necessity for "everything," which is analogous to two and two necessarily making four.

As a believer, however, I would look at this and say there is a basic disconnect between what you're saying and what LDS theology actually teaches.

Modern day scripture tells us that God's work is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children". That is His Work. That is what Gods do. It is a continual never ending cycle. How the moving parts work together or whether or not they even can is a point of speculation. Not to say it isn't interesting and insightful.

Earlier I mentioned that God's greatness is a result of "relationships". Without those relationships, which I think you've alluded to, God would not be God. I suppose at that point you could argue that He may not exist. But again, IF God's work...worlds without end...is to bring to pass the eternal progress of eternal intelligence(s)/beings...moving parts and all...THAT is His purpose. That is what makes him "greater than they all" (I think that's the right scriptural language).

I think there is a fallacy, I mentioned it earlier, in looking at things as SIMPLY greater than or less than in the traditional sense of power dynamics. It's all about relationships/progress and who or what facilitates that process eon after eon (both singular and plural).

So...God cannot be God without His children. Over the years I've maintained on this board that one of the reasons I believe in a creator God is the fact that the world seems to have purpose/meaning/order. The Book of Mormon gives the conditions under which God would cease to be God. Relationships and purpose/creation are the foundation of it all.

A teacher who never teaches is not a teacher.
A father is not a father without children.

A God who saves no one isn't the God Mormonism describes. If God is Love, as has been discussed, would not one think that this love is not love without the opportunity, in a cosmic sense, for that love to expand outward to billions of entities/intelligences/beings?

Regard,
MG

[Limnor]

Modern day scripture tells us that God's work is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children".

Unless it changes tomorrow.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because you’re fundamentally a dishonest man. It is what it is.

That is not true. It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else repeats it.

Regards,
MG

I’m not going to argue MG’s character, because he’s long since established what he is. But, I want to point out another phenomena of conservative men I’ve noticed over the years - their hubris. They lie and lie, and know they’re lying, and they get away with it because people don’t hold them to account, and they begin to believe no ones notices. Even though they know they’re deceitful, they believe over time people are too gullible to ever see them for what they are, though this process is just a subconscious reaction to the world, rather than overtly thought about - they’re mostly too stupid to be that introspective.

I just want to make it clear to you conservative dickwads; people see you for the frauds you are. They may not aways call you out on it, and hell, some may even publicly defend you, but we all know you’re a bunch of phony pricks. So, keep telling yourselves that you’re good men while you do all this obnoxious crap anonymously or away from friendly eyes, but you are seen, and you are correctly judged.

[Limnor]

So...God cannot be God without His children. Over the years I've maintained on this board that one of the reasons I believe in a creator God is the fact that the world seems to have purpose/meaning/order. The Book of Mormon gives the conditions under which God would cease to be God. Relationships and purpose/creation are the foundation of it all.

A teacher who never teaches is not a teacher.
A father is not a father without children.

A God who saves no one isn't the God Mormonism describes. If God is Love, as has been discussed, would not one think that this love is not love without the opportunity, in a cosmic sense, for that love to expand outward to billions of entities/intelligences/beings?

Regard,
MG

It’s supposed to be simple but once you get past level 1 god it falls apart.

[I Have Questions]

Because you’re fundamentally a dishonest man. It is what it is.

That is not true. It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else repeats it.

Regards,
MG

There’s a plethora of examples on this board. You are fundamentally dishonest. It’s now unarguable.

[MG 2.0]

That is not true. It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else repeats it.

Regards,
MG

I’m not going to argue MG’s character, because he’s long since established what he is. But, I want to point out another phenomena of conservative men I’ve noticed over the years - their hubris. They lie and lie, and know they’re lying, and they get away with it because people don’t hold them to account, and they begin to believe no ones notices. Even though they know they’re deceitful, they believe over time people are too gullible to ever see them for what they are, though this process is just a subconscious reaction to the world, rather than overtly thought about - they’re mostly too stupid to be that introspective.

I just want to make it clear to you conservative dickwads; people see you for the frauds you are. They may not aways call you out on it, and hell, some may even publicly defend you, but we all know you’re a bunch of phony pricks. So, keep telling yourselves that you’re good men while you do all this obnoxious crap anonymously or away from friendly eyes, but you are seen, and you are correctly judged.

Well Doc, it's been a long time coming, but I just don't see where you and I can really go anywhere and have a good civil discussion about anything. Your track record over a long period of time does not lend itself to that. I will add one more name to ignore. I know that doesn't disappoint you and that it's no skin off your back. You'll probably drop in and drop bombs when ever I have something worthwhile to contribute. Join the club!

Best wishes. I'm trying to think of at least a few times we may have had some good and worthy discussions...but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Be that as it may, best wishes.

Turning off another channel.

(some of you are saying, "Mission accomplished!" I get it. And I understand that from your end it looks like that.

Here I am, trying to respond to Gadianton and ANOTHER poster drops in to simply take a crap. Well, crap away! But it's not fair to those that drop in thinking this might be a board where they can see anything other than an echo chamber of discontent and criticism. I suppose if it wasn't for me that would be true.

Granted, fewer and few people to have an honest conversation with. Some folks that may have shown up at one time aren't even showing up anymore. Too much of a sh** fest without anything new under the sun that might be interesting. Rehash upon rehash. Hate upon hate.

Maybe DCP was right. Too bad.

Regards,
MG