The Nehor

That is a theory that is only possibly valid if certain speculative forms of physics are true. It recently got popular because the rotation of galaxies matches to a degree what this theory would require. Of course there are also lots of other possible explanations. It makes for good clickbait though.

If I had unlimited time I would but if I find a source to regularly not be credible I move on to other sources. It is easier and safer to learn from people who are careful about the facts and (despite the bias everyone has) attempt to present it in a way that is not misleading or loaded. People who confidently and enthusiastically spread misinformation are a dime a dozen and I generally don’t spend time on them.

The question is more whether you need a partner to get into the Celestial Kingdom at all so that all those who enter that kingdom are partnered and single people cannot reach that kingdom at all or if the Celestial glory includes subdivisions where single people dwell in the lower ones. Both work. I think the former is more likely to be the intended reading. Why introduce the idea of three subdivisions without clarifying what they are beyond how you get into the highest? If it is talking about the three general degrees of glory then revelation already gives a (limited) description so it makes sense not to expound on them. That is assuming this summary is accurate which is a difficult question to answer.

Yeah, also for a subject like this I want a more rigorous academic analysis of texts. And I have watched a few of their shows about things I know a little about and have rolled my eyes at how badly they twist or misrepresent the premises to reach the conclusion. I am not sure how common this is but I don’t trust them.

Yeah, the fruit of the tree of life is usually believed to give immortality so it might be what was meant. I haven’t gone into a deep dive on that topic though to figure out if that was likely the meaning of the tree of life when it was written. I am convinced though that based on context and the opinions of experts that ‘dying in the 24 hour day you eat the fruit’ is most likely was meant by the writer. A lot of the Book of Genesis is pretty weird. One of the things I have been meaning to look into is why the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth use so many of the same names or nearly the same names in their genealogies. I wonder if they took one list and shuffled the names around to make the other.

They are also putting themselves up for large-scale humiliation and degradation from people like teddyaware and people who are much less restrained in their hostility. This damage will be done to them whether they win or lose. And yeah, if everyone you bring on board to this “volunteer’ gig that doesn’t need and shouldn’t have volunteers says you are a sex pest you are a sex pest. Plus the whole concept is designed by and for the sex pest. We have to go undercover and we have to pretend to be in a relationship so we don’t blow our cover. Yeah, I am sure it sounds convincing but if you know anything about stings or underconver work the whole idea is just stupid. This isn’t an episode of NCIS or whatever where you have to do extended time undercover. You literally pretend to be in a relationship for a few minutes until you make your move and bring in the cameras. You don’t even need a spouse for this whole ruse. It is rubbish. He did it because he wants to flirt with women. We have some of his chatlogs. He was flirting and being a sex pest and explaining how important it was to fake this vibe (that he wasn’t faking) to avoid getting caught. I am not blaming the victims who got caught up in it but people defending him after it all comes out don’t have this excuse. Don’t be pro-sex pest shouldn’t be a high standard for people in general. I wish I could say that I find it baffling that so many Church members (most of them men) are willing to defend a sex pest but I just don’t. Patriarchal values at their finest……..yuck.

Pretty big “if” there as the statement is loaded with assumptions. Or their testimony was just considered insufficient to pass muster in court. Your characterization is standard demonization and is not necessarily true. And an unproven assumption that just because it was not enough to move the case forward that it was all based on dishonesty. Or not. This wasn’t an example of things being aired out and exhaustively litigated. Just a determination it is not enough to convict. That is not proof of innocence. That is not what Ballard is doing or what is happening. You are saying he must be innocent because he is willing to fight it out in court. That is not proof of any kind of interest in bringing things to light. He isn’t volunteering information or anything. You are clearly emotionally invested in this guy for some weird reason. You can just ask him out if you are that into him. Fanboys these days……

What are you talking about? Nobody thought that any of their gods were actually the gold or silver or stone statues. That is not what Paul is arguing against. There was a belief that they could be an image of the deity. This is the way that many early Christians understood Jesus, as a living equivalent of an idol carrying the image and/or name of God. A superior version of an idol. This is how he transitions to Jesus and the resurrection. It is a poem. It is poetic. You’re also really hung up on this definition to the point that context seems to not matter at all. Zeus didn’t birth or even create humanity in Greek myth. Prometheus did. This is just acknowledging Zeus as the supreme deity. It is not suggesting a similarity in kind. He did choose it carefully for his argument and it works (to a point). It does not support the LDS theology of gods and humanity being of the same type of being. It clearly does because the philosopher claims to be the offspring of Zeus when, again, Zeus did not create humanity much less birth them. That is not what Paul was teaching nor does it establish in any way that humanity and the gods are the same kind of being.

Yeah, that would be illegal. And if you refuse to give them their legal documents in order to keep them at volunteer labor in the meantime that benefits your institution it could potentially fall under human trafficking, kidnapping, forced labor, and probably a bunch of other crimes.

I think an attempt would have gone very badly for them. There was no Columbian exchange of disease to depopulate Japan and Japan was relatively unified compared to the fractured groups that populated South and Central America. No strategic alliances to aid in conquest. So their usual approach wouldn’t work.

Which is a blast against image worship and not other gods. Idols were not the Greek gods any more than the ark of the Covenant was the Israelite God. Humans and elements were not considered the same thing or considered to come from the same source in Greek philosophy or religion. Except Aratus didn’t mean that nor did Paul’s audience seem to believe that is what Aratus or Paul meant. You’re relying way too much on a word choice that you think has to be literal. ”He is a son to me.” Someone in the far future could read a line like that and assume that means I must be a literal son. Plutarch would probably have been less than ten years old at this point. He was more of the “world-soul” type where human souls would be emanations of God. Premortal souls existing is a thing. Doesn’t really support a parent/child relationship between God and humanity. At least not one compatible with LDS theology.

Yes, I now worship El and his goddess Asherah. I keep going back further in time.

All of Christianity is just Jewish apostates. We’re all going to burn in hell for our heresy. That is all.

I have no idea. I am just saying that in the Genesis story there is no indication that they are immune to aging or immortal. That seems like the kind of thing you mention if you think it is important.

Yes, he slips in a standard idol polemic similar to how Jeremiah (and others) did. That is not the main thrust of what he is saying though. In the verses before he talks about how God has granted humanity all their power and reason. He is claiming that one God is the source of all life. He was arguing that humans and the divine are more alike than idols and the divine. It is not about being biologically related. If the argument was that God and humans are biologically related because Zeus and humans are biologically related it falls apart even faster when someone points out that Zeus and humans aren’t biologically related. He is arguing that God created man in his own image. Not that God birthed humanity. I suspect Paul is probably about to transition into teaching that Jesus is the perfect representation of God in a way that surpasses all idols since he starts talking about Jesus and the resurrection. Again, he is using a quotation about a Greek pagan god who is not biologically related to humanity. Why would he do that to try to show that God is somehow biologically related to humanity? He is talking to philosophers. They would shoot him down in seconds. Paul is preaching the superiority of the God he is preaching by tying God to creating humanity. There is a lot of Greek philosophy tied up in how humanity is different from the animals and the natural world but he is pointing towards a greater God. I am not familiar enough with Greek philosophy to go beyond that. I know a bit but if I tried to explain it I would probably get a lot of it wrong. The most powerful counterargument is that if humanity was being taught to be the biological children of God why did no one at the time pick up on or engage with that idea? Instead it is suddenly discovered to mean that over a millenium later by a faith that preaches that this is the case. If you can only find this idea in the text when you bring that idea to the text it is probably not in the actual text.