1.) the god concept as a variable in an equation can play act everyone in everyone’s own private infinite universe to give them what that person wants forever without harming them or god forever (or at all).
2.) hyperdimensional mirror realities where you reflect an infinite universe of spirits to your desire discarding unwanted substantiations from the eternal for realm to give you what you want as a personal and unique spirit without harming anyone In your private and infinite universe.
These are the two ideal options. Each spirit is different.
God is just a variable in a logical/visceral equation to me…
1.) the god concept as a variable in an equation can play act everyone in everyone’s own private infinite universe to give them what that person wants forever without harming them or god forever (or at all).
self=other, yes “What you did (not do) to them, you did (not do) to me.” …the eventually-turned-back-to-good-(if-not-already-good)-best-educated-guess-at-good wants we all have in common.
2.) hyperdimensional mirror realities where you reflect an infinite universe of spirits to your desire discarding unwanted substantiations from the eternal form realm to give you what you want as a personal and unique spirit without harming anyone In your private and infinite universe.
Was I right to correct “for” to “form”? How are you going to discard anything from the eternal? That is an argument some A-theorists use against a coeternal timeline, because they think it means it makes evil a part of the eternal (transcendent) being (but nothing is wasted, all is turned back to good, even the evil yet to happen, and the complete story/plan interprets the parts, just like you can’t cherry pick Scripture). It’s so stinkin adorable (I don’t care who y’are) how you show that the eternal is intertwined with (immanent in) the temporal (now), and they are not two separate realities or mere imaginings/ideas. The Trinity is never alone, being three persons, so another argument for A-theory, that B-theory emasculates God’s power, does not make sense to me, considering a lack of self=other love is a deficit, not a strength, fullness, or great-making.
These are the two ideal options. Each spirit is different.
But… also same… hence same name… spirit.
God is just a variable in a logical/visceral equation to me…
self=other? Good. I don’t see a problem.
“Energetic ideal”
God shouldn’t care whether you call god, god.
I can’t think of any passage where he says his name is god. When he talks about his name, he seems more to be talking about his being/qualities than a title. He doesn’t want people to get the wrong idea/impression/image… he doesn’t want us to miss the point. “What you did (not do) to them, you did (not do) to me.”
