Starwatcher

Probably They are worlds without number, but He said that he could number them, because they are his. We can't number them, because we can't see them all. Moses 1:35 - But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. Since our Milky Way galaxy will meet and merge with the Andromeda galaxy in a couple billion years, it seems unlikely that Father's realm extends only to the Milky Way. I am convinced that Father's kingdom consists of the known (and unknown universe). And that He was the one who initiated the Big Bang.

Wow, this discussion has been going on since 2012? Perhaps it was necromanced recently -- I haven't checked out the entire thread. But, here's my two cents. And I get this idea from Orson Scott Card, who wrote the script for Living Scriptures Dramatized New Testament. In that dramatization, he suggests that Judas had gotten frustrated with Jesus's failure to use his powers and popularity to begin the revolt against Rome that Judas and some others had expected and wanted him to begin. And Judas arranged matters so that Jesus would be put into a position where he would have to use his powers to show to the Sanhedrin that he was actually the Messiah. And instead of doing this as Judas expected, Jesus allowed them to condemn him to death. And news of this is what caused Judas to kill himself, realizing finally the depth of his betrayal. Of course, Card also suggests that Judas was rather too concerned for money and may even have mishandled the funds entrusted to him. Personally, I don't believe that Judas was sufficiently guilty to be a Son of Perdition. It seems to me that it is possible that he may be able to repent and be worthy of the Terrestrial Kingdom. After all, Jesus himself said that even those who denied him could be forgiven.

I'm seriously overweight. If I lost 100 lbs I'd still be overweight, so you get the picture. Well, my wife has decided to go on a diet aided by a meal replacement product (starting tomorrow). She's had success with this before, and expects to be successful again. But even if it works, I think it's only a short term solution -- so I won't be participating. But after reading Dr. Jason Fung's book, "The Obesity Code", a few months ago, I have decided to use a different strategy for weight loss -- and this will be intermittent fasting. I start tomorrow! Meaning I won't be eating at all tomorrow -- nor all day on Sunday. Of course, this happens to overlap with Fast Sunday this month, but whatever. I'm just trying to time it according to my wife's efforts. I haven't quite settled on my fasting schedule, but I think I will start out by not eating on weekends. Incidentally, my late wife used to like to do what she called "10 day lemon cleanses", which your maple syrup/lemon squirt reminded me of. I couldn't deal with it, but when she did this she would routinely lose about 14 pounds or so. And after she was done, the weight would go back on in a few weeks. But she wasn't doing it for weight loss -- she just liked how she felt during and after the cleanse. I think this is called a "Master Cleanse" in some quarters, but it wasn't quite what my late wife did. What she did was a quart of water with the juice of one lemon (or lime), a tablespoon of maple syrup, and a quarter teaspoon of cayenne pepper. Drink as much of this as you like, as well as all the plain water you wanted. At the end of ten days, there was a vegetable soupish thing that you were supposed to transition to, and then a gradual resumption of a healthy diet. The originator of this particular regimen had a number of pseudoscientific pronouncements about the diet that made no sense at all, but whatever.

In my initial read of the OP I thought this was a request for recommendations for dating websites. The first sentence is what did it. But it turns out that this is a discussion of why on earth one gets dating websites in advertising presented to one on the internet. I found my wife on an LDS-oriented dating website, by the way.

Klaymen is no longer in the building, as it were, but I thought this particular statement should be addressed. Actually, John 4:24 does not say "God is a Spirit." The English translation of John 4:24 says that, yes, but Greek does not have the indefinite article "a". Thus it could just as well have been rendered by the KJV translators as "God is Spirit." What does a translator want to say? If one is translating into English, and one is a Trinitarian, perhaps one might prefer to use the indefinite article "a" to make the doctrinal point of the incorporeality of God. Interestingly, in his German translation of the Bible, Martin Luther rendered this verse as "Gott ist Geist" ("God is Spirit"), omitting the indefinite article (which German does have) -- thus missing the opportunity to lend more support to the Trinitarian point that God doesn't have a body. And then we come to the problem of being able to pray to God "in Spirit". Must we shed our body to pray to Him in truth? Or does "spirit" mean something more nuanced than incorporeality? This is a good question. I am reminded of the 8th Article of Faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..." But one might want to enhance the 8th Article of Faith as follows: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is transmitted and translated correctly..." Take 1 John 5:7-8, the Johannine Comma, for example. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. These verses are very nicely supportive of the Trinity, as described in the Nicene Creed. As it turns out, they appear to be interpolations and not part of the original text. You can translate these two verses as correctly as you like, but are they the "word of God"? Their transmission is highly suspect and even if you believe the doctrine they imply, they must be excluded from canon, because they are not what flowed from the pen of the original writer. So, can we trust John 4? I'm on mormondialogue.org (I'm Stargazer there), and he hasn't shown up there yet, so far as I can determine.

In West Sussex, in a small village about 7 miles northwest of Brighton.

Introducing: ME! Just found this forum a day or so ago, and it looks interesting, so here I am. Not sure how much I will participate, but we shall see! I'm a Yank living in the UK, so I'm 8 hours ahead of West Coast US folks. Not sure what else to say -- I did leave more info in my profile, so go there if you want to see more.