Intelligences Organized

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep thanks!

The spirit is number one and must rule our lives.THAT is the compass- the Liahona if you will

On the other hand, for some of us who are afflicted with the need for everything to make intellectual sense as well, if you cannot explain it intellectually- even if the intellectual explanation is that "you cannot explain it intellectually",  at least one has given an intellectual answer.  THAT is a deep need for me, and I know also for some others.

But what you have added is the idea of "community norms" for the celestial kingdom- that great "gated community" in the sky    I think that goes well with social Trinitarianism as well as our view of the Godhead as well.

We have self-determined ourselves by standards we take on freely in our community and invite all who want to participate in the community- who will keep the standards- to join us.  Others have other communities we personally do not want to join, thank you very much.

There is a reason the church is described symbolically as the "wife" of Christ, and not his "spouse".  We are to be one flesh with One who already has celestial flesh.  We are not the same flesh as He is- yet.  Our relationship to him is one of Love with the Other- one of a different flesh than we are, yet of the same humanity.  The goal in the unity of the sexes is to manifest tangibly the unity of mankind in all its differences, that all mankind is "one flesh" INCLUDING others of different races and genders.  To me, that is the promise of Christ and us as the church being his "wife".

That's my story and I am sticking to it.  

Brünnhilde hath sung. Bravo!

Edited June 9, 2016 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I believe John Dehlin's survey indicated a much higher than average divorce rate for such couples. The sample size was pretty large, but non-random, so limited in value.

Given it was publicized heavily among a group whose general belief positions rejects the idea that someone with same sex attraction should not intentionally engage in any practices that increase such feelings and instead should put effort into creating an opposite sex relationship, one is unlikely to get a good measure of success stories (from what I hear, the success stories include a huge commitment to the idea there is great value for someone with same sex attraction to develop an opposite sex relationship).

I don't see much value in using Dehlin's study for generalizing.

[Calm]

Got to bow out again.  My arms are tingling and given it took a monthish to get them to stop by not typing on my ipad, I am not going to risk undoing that good work.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes it does. It doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator, it simply makes him unnecessary. 

.....................................................................

While it is true that an infinite number of monkeys working on an infinite number of typewriters an infinite amount of time would indeed come up with Hamlet and every other work of literature and law.  That is in the nature of infinity, and has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God (or gods), nor does it entail the necessary existence or lack of necessity of God (or gods).  These are quite different issues about which you have failed to think systematically.  You have failed to account for the undistributed middle term in your enthymeme, that is you have committed a logical fallacy.  Moreover, discussing the nature of the observable universe in such terms is nonsensical and pointless.

The claim of Necessary Being of God is a theoretical construct which can neither be proved nor disproved, since it posits that such God is outside of time and space, and is not part of nature.  It is the basic dogma of Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, but creates paradoxes and absurdities which have led most systematic thinkers to drop it as a source of rational belief.  It is the greatest weakness of these mainstream religions, and the greatest reason for death of God theologies.  Atheists and Mormons are correct to attack it.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

It is impossible for me to be wrong about this.

Every time I think I am really arrogant someone comes along to prove I am a rank amateur at it. One of life's little mercies.

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

So I'm now telling you to not be surprised when you get there and see that what I told you was not only something you should have understood with common sense but is still my favorite and most recommended way to do it.

Thanks for sharing. Just a little creepy.

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

No labs.   No "Do Not Touch" signs.  Not even a blip from me that sexual relations with an opposite sex spouse is a bad or inferior or ungodly way to go about creating children.

Is this a really creepy way of beating your chest about masculine sexual prowess or do you actually equate thinking procreation might be different in the next life with being disgusted with sex?

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While it is true that an infinite number of monkeys working on an infinite number of typewriters an infinite amount of time would indeed come up with Hamlet and every other work of literature and law.  That is in the nature of infinity, and has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God (or gods), nor does it entail the necessary existence or lack of necessity of God (or gods).  These are quite different issues about which you have failed to think systematically.  You have failed to account for the undistributed middle term in your enthymeme, that is you have committed a logical fallacy.  Moreover, discussing the nature of the observable universe in such terms is nonsensical and pointless.

The claim of Necessary Being of God is a theoretical construct which can neither be proved nor disproved, since it posits that such God is outside of time and space, and is not part of nature.  It is the basic dogma of Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, but creates paradoxes and absurdities which have led most systematic thinkers to drop it as a source of rational belief.  It is the greatest weakness of these mainstream religions, and the greatest reason for death of God theologies.  Atheists and Mormons are correct to attack it.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.  It is NOT necessary to assume that God created our world. I am not saying he did or didn't, all I am saying is that there is a simpler explanation for the creation of our world, especially if our universe is infinite. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Got to bow out again.  My arms are tingling and given it took a monthish to get them to stop by not typing on my ipad, I am not going to risk undoing that good work.

Try getting a keyboard you can dictate on.  Google keyboard is one.  You just speak and it types for you.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm on heavy painkillers for my back right now, so forgive if my topic is not on topic. All this talk about creation of spirits and babies and bodies, makes me think I should talk about how I feel about the Celestial Kingdom. I have strong belief as a TBM that everyone will be naked in the Celestial Kingdom and here's why. Adam and Eve were pure and innocent and they were naked in an Edenlike state in the Garden. They didn't care that they were naked until they fell and Satan caused them to feel shamed. When a child is born, a child is pure. A child is born completely naked. Clothes cover nudity to cover shame in this fallen telestial world. The Celestial Kingdom will be a place where there are no lusts or shame, and everyone's bodies will be perfected so I am making an assumption that people in the Celestial Kingdom won't need any clothes. We see angels wearing white robes because maybe they're perceived as wearing them while dealing with fallen lustful mortals that do not understand at a Celestial level. Those are my thoughts on why I believe nudity is the way in the Celestial Kingdom, because there will be no lust and everyone will be perfect, both physically and spiritually. When people create, the act is usually done by a husband and wife who are both naked, to create a new being which comes into creation naked and innocent. Did I just blow all your minds or is Dilaudid not good to take before bed? I felt so sure about it that I changed my rank below my username. Surely these are all choices I will not regret when I wake up tomorrow morning.

Edited June 10, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.  It is NOT necessary to assume that God created our world. I am not saying he did or didn't, all I am saying is that there is a simpler explanation for the creation of our world, especially if our universe is infinite. 

And we breathe air even if it isn't.  

And I am saying that.

[VideoGameJunkie]

The old washings and anointings in the temples throughout time used to be done while the person was completely nude. It's just this fallen telestial world feels nudity is a big deal, while all of us in our pre mortal state were watching Adam and Eve frolic around naked without going insane. It wasn't until Satan told Adam that he should be ashamed of being naked. Who you going to listen to about being naked? Satan who wants nothing more than to destroy you, or God who enjoyed while you innocently frolicked naked and spoke with him on a daily basis.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

And the Celestial Kingdom is a paradise state, like the Garden and Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, symbolizing pureness and members of the Celestial Kingdom are those who overcame everything and are pure in a paradise state with perfected bodies. And what will be the need for clothes in the kingdoms anyway?

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

And the Celestial Kingdom is a paradise state, like the Garden and Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, symbolizing pureness and members of the Celestial Kingdom are those who overcame everything and are pure in a paradise state with perfected bodies. And what will be the need for clothes in the kingdoms anyway?

Obviously because as post-mortal beings, they know good from evil and are not in a state of naive innocence. Those who have seen celestial beings often describe

the clothing they are wearing.

[VideoGameJunkie]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Obviously because as post-mortal beings, they know good from evil and are not in a state of naive innocence. Those who have seen celestial beings often describe

the clothing they are wearing.

Ya, mortal people living in a telestial world describe clothes because that's what we have to deal with. If we were to live in the Celestial Kingdom, I wouldn't see a need for clothes, especially with our perfected resurrected bodies. Try and find me a reason why exalted beings would have to wear clothing in their own sphere of the Celestial Kingdom and not just on an earthly messenger visit where they throw on a robe?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Try getting a keyboard you can dictate on.  Google keyboard is one.  You just speak and it types for you.

Good idea.  Thanks.  I didn't have a problem (save a mild numbness in the thumbs occasionally that I thought was neuropathy) till I killed my laptop and went totally to ipad, even when using the former lying down.  I think it is the one finger hunt and peck style that is damaging.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

 I felt so sure about it that I changed my rank below my username. Surely these are all choices I will not regret when I wake up tomorrow morning.

Been there, done that, lol.

Still not quite comfortable with the new name, but it is growing on me.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.  It is NOT necessary to assume that God created our world. I am not saying he did or didn't, all I am saying is that there is a simpler explanation for the creation of our world, especially if our universe is infinite. 

Whatever happened to your illogical and irrelevant claim that infinity "doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator, it simply makes him unnecessary"?

Aside from moving the goal posts, you have not yet said anything coherent in defense of your offhand claims, so I am still waiting for that "simpler explanation."  Perhaps you would be so good as to provide it, Skeptic.  Otherwise, I must assume that it just doesn't exist.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Been there, done that, lol.

Still not quite comfortable with the new name, but it is growing on me.

So, are you gong to keep Calm after all, and carry on?

[CV75]

It is interesting to me that since we are co-eternal intelligences with God, our organization has as much to do with our willingness and voluntary action as His (except He is more advanced), just as our children are brought to earth trough their willingness and choice to come here, and get here through us.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The old washings and anointings in the temples throughout time used to be done while the person was completely nude. It's just this fallen telestial world feels nudity is a big deal, while all of us in our pre mortal state were watching Adam and Eve frolic around naked without going insane. It wasn't until Satan told Adam that he should be ashamed of being naked. Who you going to listen to about being naked? Satan who wants nothing more than to destroy you, or God who enjoyed while you innocently frolicked naked and spoke with him on a daily basis.

 

I suspect we wear whatever we do or do not want to. Adam and Eve before the Fall were unfallen beings. We will never go back to that state of innocence so following their wardrobe choices will make little sense. Plus Brigham Young suggested that clothing will be worn there.

Yeah, and making decisions while under the influence of medication is generally a bad idea.

Edited June 10, 2016 by The Nehor

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Given it was publicized heavily among a group whose general belief positions rejects the idea that someone with same sex attraction should not intentionally engage in any practices that increase such feelings and instead should put effort into creating an opposite sex relationship, one is unlikely to get a good measure of success stories (from what I hear, the success stories include a huge commitment to the idea there is great value for someone with same sex attraction to develop an opposite sex relationship).

I don't see much value in using Dehlin's study for generalizing.

The study is, at least, more valuable than guessing or going off of one or two anecdotes. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Whatever happened to your illogical and irrelevant claim that infinity "doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator, it simply makes him unnecessary"?.

I just said the same thing, but with different words. If our universe is infinite, it means that there is an infinite number of planets (with life) that were not created by Gods. It's true that Gods (advance aliens) exists in an infinite universe, but it doesn't mean they created our world. They created many worlds, but not necessarily our world. 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Aside from moving the goal posts, you have not yet said anything coherent in defense of your offhand claims, so I am still waiting for that "simpler explanation."  Perhaps you would be so good as to provide it, Skeptic.  Otherwise, I must assume that it just doesn't exist.

Robert, you are the one that changed the subject when you told me, "Exactly, which will be the best demonstration of intelligent design. Gods know how to do it, and they use natural, if technical means to do it "  Anyways, the simpler explanation is that the laws of nature created our world. That happens all the time in an infinite universe. You just admitted that, "it is true that an infinite number of monkeys working on an infinite number of typewriters an infinite amount of time would indeed come up with Hamlet and every other work of literature and law " Abiogenesis in an infinite universe happens all the time without the intervention of a God. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Every time I think I am really arrogant someone comes along to prove I am a rank amateur at it. One of life's little mercies.

Thanks for sharing. Just a little creepy.

Is this a really creepy way of beating your chest about masculine sexual prowess or do you actually equate thinking procreation might be different in the next life with being disgusted with sex?

There is nothing arrogant about using some common sense.  And there isn't anything dirty or wrong or ungodly about a husband having old-fashioned sexual relations with his wife, either, or vice versa.

The bottom line is that I am still going to be a man after I am resurrected,  and my wife will still be a beautiful, wonderful,  adorable woman too.  And all of our body parts will still work, too, even better than when we were both in our prime as mortals.  

So you do the math, if you can do it properly. 

What in the world or in heaven do you think could possibly prevent my wife and I... when we are in heaven and still married to each other... from having sexual relations and reproducing ourselves into more little ones like us who will grow up in our mansion in heaven just like we did when we were little?

The "you don't really know how it will work" comments may still be applicable to you but it wouldn't really take that much for you to know at least one of the ways it would actually work.  Just a little common sense and the realization that men will still be men and women will always be women, with those who are married to each other still doing what married men and women do.

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Try and find me a reason why exalted beings would have to wear clothing in their own sphere of the Celestial Kingdom and not just on an earthly messenger visit where they throw on a robe?

If I saw my wife naked all the time I'd have a very hard time concentrating on anything other than wanting to have sexual relations with her all of the time.  Plus I wouldn't have the joy of seeing her take her clothes off if she already had them off all of the time.  Plus any other naked woman I saw would inspire me to want to have sexual relations with my wife, again, and again.  Plus that would seem pretty monotonous to be doing pretty much nothing but having sexual relations with my wife all of the time.

Clothes provide a buffer between seeing people naked all of the time and sometimes it is just nice to have that buffer to help us get some other things done, other than having sexual relations all of the time, or even most of the time.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Clothes provide a buffer...

Not necessarily; where there's a will, there's a way!

[VideoGameJunkie]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If I saw my wife naked all the time I'd have a very hard time concentrating on anything other than wanting to have sexual relations with her all of the time.  Plus I wouldn't have the joy of seeing her take her clothes off if she already had them off all of the time.  Plus any other naked woman I saw would inspire me to want to have sexual relations with my wife, again, and again.  Plus that would seem pretty monotonous to be doing pretty much nothing but having sexual relations with my wife all of the time.

Clothes provide a buffer between seeing people naked all of the time and sometimes it is just nice to have that buffer to help us get some other things done, other than having sexual relations all of the time, or even most of the time.

But we wont have the earthly carnal desires as an exalted being so being distracted wouldn't happen. You wouldn't see it as a big deal that your wife or any attractive girl was naked.