A Hypothetical Question

[sgallan]

To qualify.... I am not remotely thinking about any of this. I do not believe in any god and actually plan on raising another heathen like me. Problems or no..... I rather like my life, I like challenges, and have a really cool kid to raise. Given that, Amillia's general attitude about life/addiction/and so forth, got me thinking....

Lets say somebody LDS convinces me (or somebody like me) that your god is the real one. I really believe it. BUT.... I don't particularly care for this god, can do the math, and understand that Infinity is greater than 70-80 years of temporal existance. Why would I bother hanging around this existance? Wouldn't I just be better off getting it over with and going to one of the lower Kingdoms.... still pretty good places? Why wouldn't I just say... "to heck with these challenges, and BS, since I don't want the CK anyway". What would be the point of hanging out in this dispenstation? I mean.... do you really want to convince me this god is real? Afterall, I might not be around long if you do.

Another spin on this..... lets say I am that lady in Texas, doomed to insanity but have a moment of clarity, with perhaps a bad father..... why wouldn't such a person drown her babies - all under age eight - to make sure they get to the CK? Instead of having them taking the risk of not getting there due to genetic insanity or addiction problems?

I ask this hypothetical question of BAC's often. I am curious as to the LDS rationale.

Enjoy.....

[sgallan]

Sorry. The board did some weird thing with my new topic. Please delete the redundancies.....

[sgallan]

Hmm...... lets think about this analogy a little further. Lets say I am a RM. Entirely celibate and also entirely gay. With an, err..... active libido. Given this, and given the odds are against me - knowing myself as being weak in this regard and barely hanging on- why wouldn't the hypothetical "I" take up an extremely risky activity..... like BASE jumping.... always pushing the envelope.... knowing it would do me in..... but still not technically committing suicide? I mean in this way while I wouln't be exalted at least I wouldn't be sent to a lower kingdom.

It seems it would be the practical route to take.

Why not?

[sgallan]

FWIW, my take on religion, and eternity is, if it were somehow true then heck, lets get to the eternity..... 70-80 years ain't nothin'. People get weirded out when I bring up this kind of perspective. Why is that?

[Amillia]

This life is for gaining experience and knowledge as well as kingdoms beyond. You cut it short and you cut off your nose to spite your own face.

Would you think your daughter better off not having her life's experiences? Or do you think they benefit her in someway? Take any experience you have here and see what you have gained from it. Then times that benefit by 100 fold. It will pay off to stick it out, just to gain more experiences.

Plus, anyone you benefit through your life, in service, will counter balance any wrongs you may commit. Charity covereth a multitude of sins.

[sgallan]

*** This life is for gaining experience and knowledge as well as kingdoms beyond. ****

But - as in the case of a gay person - the kingdoms could be lessor, better not to risk it I say.

***You cut it short and you cut off your nose to spite your own face.****

So what? From the perspective of 70 years versus billions of years.... big deal.

*** Would you think your daughter better off not having her life's experiences? ****

Ahh, but like the lady in Texas - maybe she did those kids a favor. They get to go to the CK now. Raised by a crazy parent maybe they would have been crazy too (like my kid and the drug addict mom - like you suggested - it is to late and no hope, right?) and those experiences would have kept them from the CK. Instead of everybody saying.... "how could she do that to her babies".... maybe they should consider her a tragic hero instead. In a moment of cognizance she did what she thought best for those babies. This is especially true within your faith.

*** Or do you think they benefit her in someway? Take any experience you have here and see what you have gained from it. Then times that benefit by 100 fold. It will pay off to stick it out, just to gain more experiences.****

I am all for experiences. A big fan of them. But that isn't my point. My point is.... if I were to believe in your theology.... why would somebody risk the eternal future of themselves (the gay person), or their children (the lady in Texas), for a few measley experiences for a short time here?

*** Plus, anyone you benefit through your life, in service, will counter balance any wrongs you may commit. Charity covereth a multitude of sins. ****

But again..... I am talking about 70 years versus 1,000,000,000,000,000 plus. Who cares if a few things in an unbelievably short time don't get experienced. It's like I don't take that one Roller Coaster ride during this lifetime..... big deal. It is just one ride. Well 70 years compared to an eternity is the samething. And.... if I were a believer.... I would actually get to experiencene stuff I never would have otherwise, because I wouldn't care if I got to the next stage. This versus the people who swear they are believers and yet are scared to try anything. Or even in comparison to me.... willing to try all kinds of stuff.... but also going to do it as safe as possible. If a believer..... I could push that limit I wouldn't dare to now. Heck if I were a believer looking to move on.... I get to experience even more intense things than I ever would have.... just for a shorter time.

Pretty tricky stuff, eh?

[pushka]

LOL sgallan, took me a little while to figure out your meaning/message...but I do think I know what you mean now...if you are so sure that there is an everlasting world to come after this one, and you are not likely to be sent to Spirit Prison or Hell...according to whichever religion you follow, then you would not be afraid to look death in the face and take the consequences...perhaps someone might argue that, for the sake of the ones you would be leaving behind, for whom you might have some responsibility, you ought to take care not to reach that eternity before your natural time comes, or this could be taken as committing a sin? of being irresponsible? lol, it isn't my way of thinking, but do any of the religious folk you know think that way?

[sgallan]

*** perhaps someone might argue that, for the sake of the ones you would be leaving behind, for whom you might have some responsibility, you ought to take care not to reach that eternity before your natural time comes, or this could be taken as committing a sin? ***

Okay, I have raised the kid..... now I get to take my chances right? And from a religious perspective everybody sins.

*** of being irresponsible?****

So I am irresponsible in a small amount of time. No biggee. I got a REALLY long time to make up for it.

*** lol, it isn't my way of thinking, but do any of the religious folk you know think that way? ****

Nah, but I don't think anybody should try to convert me. LOL..... I might think this way. And if I were Gay and a believer in this theology..... it would be a done deal. But of course I am none of the above.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 20 2005, 11:38 PM

Hmm...... lets think about this analogy a little further. Lets say I am a RM. Entirely celibate and also entirely gay. With an, err..... active libido. Given this, and given the odds are against me - knowing myself as being weak in this regard and barely hanging on- why wouldn't the hypothetical "I" take up an extremely risky activity..... like BASE jumping.... always pushing the envelope.... knowing it would do me in..... but still not technically committing suicide? I mean in this way while I wouln't be exalted at least I wouldn't be sent to a lower kingdom.

It seems it would be the practical route to take.

Why not?

Sure, that would work except you said, for the purposes of this thread, that you accepted the LDS idea of God. The scenario you gave would only work if you, in your admittedly suicidal lifestyle, were more clever than God and thus able to fool him with your intentions. Since the LDS conception of God included him not being easily fooled - your idea is flawed.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 20 2005, 11:25 PM

Lets say somebody LDS convinces me (or somebody like me) that your god is the real one. I really believe it. BUT.... I don't particularly care for this god, can do the math, and understand that Infinity is greater than 70-80 years of temporal existance. Why would I bother hanging around this existance? Wouldn't I just be better off getting it over with and going to one of the lower Kingdoms.... still pretty good places? Why wouldn't I just say... "to heck with these challenges, and BS, since I don't want the CK anyway". What would be the point of hanging out in this dispenstation? I mean.... do you really want to convince me this god is real? Afterall, I might not be around long if you do.

Another flawed idea.

You say that you aren't interested in the Celestial Kingdom but you really have little, almost no, idea of what the CK really is or is compared to the other destinations. Since you have little or no knowledge on what it's all about we have to ignore your claim that you don't want it.

[sgallan]

*** Sure, that would work except you said, for the purposes of this thread, that you accepted the LDS idea of God. The scenario you gave would only work if you, in your admittedly suicidal lifestyle, were more clever than God and thus able to fool him with your intentions. Since the LDS conception of God included him not being easily fooled - your idea is flawed. *****

Then as a gay person this posited god really didn't want me to return to him anyway. Why bothered with the tortured existance?

[sgallan]

**** You say that you aren't interested in the Celestial Kingdom but you really have little, almost no, idea of what the CK really is or is compared to the other destinations. *****

Given the general attitude of the people here and their definition of God (what else would I really have to base it on) I generally get the gist. So unless the people in the here and now are mischaracterizing this posited god, then it is fair to say I don't like said god. If they are in error..... then I STILL don't like this posited god because of his allowing such misinformation and game playing.

**** Since you have little or no knowledge on what it's all about we have to ignore your claim that you don't want it. ****

It doesn't make any difference whether you ignored it or not. I would hold my own counsel and then get to what people have stated is the "good stuff". In this world I would of course be deceased. Again, if others have mischaracterized the kingdoms it is of no matter. I would still get away from the posited god and unto eternity. Or not as it were.

[pushka]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 21 2005, 09:33 AM

*** perhaps someone might argue that, for the sake of the ones you would be leaving behind, for whom you might have some responsibility, you ought to take care not to reach that eternity before your natural time comes, or this could be taken as committing a sin? ***

Okay, I have raised the kid..... now I get to take my chances right? And from a religious perspective everybody sins.

*** of being irresponsible?****

So I am irresponsible in a small amount of time. No biggee. I got a REALLY long time to make up for it.

*** lol, it isn't my way of thinking, but do any of the religious folk you know think that way? ****

Nah, but I don't think anybody should try to convert me. LOL..... I might think this way. And if I were Gay and a believer in this theology..... it would be a done deal. But of course I am none of the above.

LOL Sgallan...thanks for filling me in with some extra details...I can understand the stance you are taking, assuming you would be a gay LDS for instance, it's sad that they would be made to feel that way because of the doctrines they believe in.

As I too do not 'hold' with the LDS theories re heaven and hell, then I have no argument to make with your hypothetical question...

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 21 2005, 12:28 PM

*** Sure, that would work except you said, for the purposes of this thread, that you accepted the LDS idea of God. The scenario you gave would only work if you, in your admittedly suicidal lifestyle, were more clever than God and thus able to fool him with your intentions. Since the LDS conception of God included him not being easily fooled - your idea is flawed. *****

Then as a gay person this posited god really didn't want me to return to him anyway. Why bothered with the tortured existance?

Wrong, you said the Mormon idea of God - and the Mormon God wants you to return and does not want you to kill yourself, especially by trying to trick God into thinking it was an accident.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 21 2005, 12:33 PM

**** You say that you aren't interested in the Celestial Kingdom but you really have little, almost no, idea of what the CK really is or is compared to the other destinations. *****

Given the general attitude of the people here and their definition of God (what else would I really have to base it on) I generally get the gist. So unless the people in the here and now are mischaracterizing this posited god, then it is fair to say I don't like said god. If they are in error..... then I STILL don't like this posited god because of his allowing such misinformation and game playing.

Let's see... a god that is all-good and all-just?

What you don't like is the human filter and the human affect.

[sgallan]

**** Wrong, you said the Mormon idea of God - and the Mormon God wants you to return and does not want you to kill yourself, especially by trying to trick God into thinking it was an accident. ****

It doesn't make any difference what God wants in this case. It is what the hypothetical "I" want. Ta heck with the angst..... lests get to the good stuff. And even using the Mormon/LDS version of God.... that is a bit of a moving target as well. There is hardly a concensus as to what this definition of God wants even among Mormons/LDS.

[sgallan]

**** Let's see... a god that is all-good and all-just? ****

All the more reason to move along and get to the good stuff. Why not take the chance this God is all-good and all-just. And FWIW, this is the same argument BAX's use when I point out this "all-good and all-just" God allows the torture of most everybody.

**** What you don't like is the human filter and the human affect. ****

Actually, I don't believe in any of it. No God(s) or religion. Not even close. But if I believed in a conservative Christian religious god I probably wouldn't be around long after I raised the kid. The concept of a measly 20 additional years when compared to eternity seems silly..... if one truly believed.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 22 2005, 07:54 AM

**** Let's see... a god that is all-good and all-just? ****

All the more reason to move along and get to the good stuff. Why not take the chance this God is all-good and all-just. And FWIW, this is the same argument BAX's use when I point out this "all-good and all-just" God allows the torture of most everybody.

**** What you don't like is the human filter and the human affect. ****

Actually, I don't believe in any of it. No God(s) or religion. Not even close. But if I believed in a conservative Christian religious god I probably wouldn't be around long after I raised the kid. The concept of a measly 20 additional years when compared to eternity seems silly..... if one truly believed.

What do you mean by the good stuff?

[sgallan]

*** What do you mean by the good stuff? ***

Some version of a Heaven.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 22 2005, 09:06 PM

*** What do you mean by the good stuff? ***

Some version of a Heaven.

Well it is by invitation only. Those crashing the "good stuff party" usually is not allowed to stay.

The good stuff is here as well.

[sgallan]

*** Well it is by invitation only. Those crashing the "good stuff party" usually is not allowed to stay. ****

NOt true. LDS theology has three. All supposed to be good. At least that is what is taught.

**** The good stuff is here as well. *****

According to people like you, people like my family are doomed to a life of misery. So by extension there can't really be any good stuff for us now. And especially no real meaning, and especially when comparing it to an eternity. Now the hereafter may not be the best for people like us in your theology, but it's still supposed to be good, other heavens are even better for folk like me..... so why bother then?

[Guest curvette]

These really are fair questions. What is to stop a religious fanatic from using extreme measures to protect their own, or others' salvation? I guess I missed the thread where Amelia said something about no hope for the children of drug addicts(?) so I'm not sure what you are responding to.

No one really knows if the child of a mentally ill person will turn out to be mentally ill themselves. There is definitely an increased risk, but that's the type of risk that should be measured BEFORE one decides to bring children into the world. Once the child is here, it's the parent's responsibility to try to raise the child well. Yes, the child may grow up and be totally messed up, but maybe they will seek help when they are grown and overcome the damage done to them by being raised by a mentally ill parent.

Also, we can't fool God. This is what King David thought when he sent Uriah out to the front lines of battle so that he could have Uriah's wife. He didn't technically kill him, but God treated him the same as if he had because He knew what David's intention was. Maybe the same goes for extreme risk taking. I don't know.

[sgallan]

But it doesn't make any difference as to whether I fool this god or not. I already said, I (hypothetically) don't care whether - within LDS theology - I get to the highest Heaven. If this God were to not send me there because of my risk activities, then my observations about this posited god would have been as I thought. I would be going to one of the other Kingdoms, which are also taught to be terrific places..... so why not just go then? Especially if the lessons in this life are lost on me anyhow and I have no intention to aspire to the CK, nor become like the 'Father'.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 22 2005, 05:50 AM

**** Wrong, you said the Mormon idea of God - and the Mormon God wants you to return and does not want you to kill yourself, especially by trying to trick God into thinking it was an accident. ****

It doesn't make any difference what God wants in this case. It is what the hypothetical "I" want. Ta heck with the angst..... lests get to the good stuff. And even using the Mormon version of God.... that is a bit of a moving target as well. There is hardly a concensus as to what this definition of God wants even among MOrmons.

If it doesn't make any difference what God wants, only what you (the hypothetical homosexual, sex-charged, virgin) then why try and fool God? Just go ahead and kill yourself.

BTW, what's with the backhanded LDS insult? Did someone from the ward spin donuts on your front lawn?

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 22 2005, 05:54 AM

**** Let's see... a god that is all-good and all-just? ****

All the more reason to move along and get to the good stuff. Why not take the chance this God is all-good and all-just. And FWIW, this is the same argument BAX's use when I point out this "all-good and all-just" God allows the torture of most everybody.

You're leaving out some detail so I have to infer what you mean. I think you mean that a just and good God either think homosexuality if fine and dandy or that if He doesn't but you're homosexual through no fault of your own, then he won't blame you for being homosexual. Either way, what's your point?

As for you "this 'all-good and all-just' God allows the torture of most everybody" --- AND? You act as if that is a contradiction. If it is, you haven't shown that. I don't find it to be a contradiction. Being good or just does not require (assuming omnipotence) one to be an interventionist.