Indeed - I touch on this theme here and here.Maybe it wants to grow every personality. What I think about a lot is punishment and justice. And I think of it in terms of selfishness, in other words, myself, what I am. Since I'm a bad person and my first reaction is to blame God for making me, what if he stands before me at the end and offers to unmake me? In other words, to let me never have existed. It would be hard for me to say yes to that, despite knowing I should. So maybe he thinks to give every possible personality a chance to exist; that in a nonlinear way, that's what makes sense, and that's justice.
These deal with the mind and imagery the mind creates and how this reflects back at the individual personality.
In the case of your own imagery, a male God stands before you at the end of your human life and offers to unmake you - to let you never have existed - because in your own judgement of your own personality, that is what you believe you deserve.
However, even that we are able to create these scenarios and even give God form in which we can reflect off of, we may not be able to make that Mind do as we want - so the offer might not be there.
Indeed, the offer may not be able to be made, because you have already become a personality through the experience you had, so to undo it would be to pretend that it never happened and this may not be an option for The Mind to be able to give to an individual personality.
It may also be the case that The Mind has stages for the personality to go through re "growing" said personality, and that next event is part of said process in the ongoing development of said personality. Thus the option may not be available on that count as well.
The very idea that you may not want to be erased could be an inbuilt aspect of the overall agenda - it may be the case that you/we are an aspect of said Mind, and eternal for that so cannot be erased in any way perhaps other than to be reintegrated into the essence of said Mind and then reconstituted into the reality experience [physical universe] in order to "grow a personality" and in that sense what is being erased is the data of your previous experience(s) rather than the essence of what/who you are are re "being a mind."
Given the drastic measure re erasure of data - which took spacetime and effort to grow, it would seem an extreme measure to which I can fathom no reason as to why it would be necessary.
On the other hand, there is the garden story where Adam blamed God for making others, so perhaps that is the extreme thing which grants the personality actual permanent death/erasure of data of experience. Blaming ones self might actually be what God is looking for in the personality grown.
Not because of some agenda where God wants to see humans groveling before his almightiness, but rather as a sign of humility and contrition for things done that needn't have been done - thus a substantial "growth" in the personalities persona.
I prefer to go with nature when it come to questions of yes or no.That is the overall problem with the Adam story. It begins an impression which carries on throughout the mythology - Humans should just trust the process and accept they are guilty of not trusting the process and why they shouldn't have involved themselves with notions of good and evil is because this interferes with the trusting of the process.That basically boils down my problem with it. They couldn't have known, for 100% certain, that God had their best interests at heart. If the rule is, whenever someone tells you no, then trust them it's no, well then nobody can do anything, because for every action, there's someone out there who will tell you it's wrong. I understand trusting one person with a no, over one other person with a yes, in a garden where you have infinite other things to eat and do, seems like a reasonable ask, but if it is reasonable, it's also reasonable for me to ask when exactly it stops being reasonable.
Here are some examples of no from Libertarians:
1. If you work for minimum wage, you are a thief using government force to steal from your employer more than he is willing to pay, and you must quit your job because it's wrong to steal.
2. If you call the police on someone breaking an overreaching government law but not physically hurting you, you are the one hurting that person. With force. Don't do it.
3. If you are summoned to jury duty, and take advantage of the law stating your employer must pay you for that day, you may not take advantage of it - it is theft. Call off from work, lie if necessary; it's not wrong to lie but it is wrong to steal. Or just don't go to jury duty.
If I just trusted anyone with a no you may not, I would not be able to do anything, and most of it is because of freedom-loving Libertarians, the most permissive people in the world.
Humans and their many laws don't appear to be progressing exponentially with what is going on in nature. When human laws do not align with nature, harm appears to be the outcome.
The fine act of balance is in understanding that there are flexibilities within natures ways, in relation to human minds and subsequent actions. We can tame and train to a certain degree whereby we allocate better standards of living than what nature provides at the coal face. Such is the flexibility of nature.
However, if this is done in a non-equitable manner, where some have and some do not, this can lead to the consequence of going against nature - and if sufficiently enough to prompt an extinction event, nature becomes inflexible and unable to assist us in turning things around.
However, we also understand that without having these ethical moralistic notions, we would never have been able to achieve tribal organization beyond basic stone tools.
If guilt was the only/best means by which the Mind of YHVH could propel the minds of humans to serve His agenda [through shaping physical materials into useful devices way beyond basic stone tools], then it would seem pertinent to understand why.
It may be reasonable to expect certain epochs of humanity to trust the process, but we are in this information aged epoch and in that, we can understand why trust was part of the past in shaping that further which happens to be our present.There might be some reason we can't understand why, but if so it's not reasonable to expect us to just trust.
In that, the onus in on each of us to the best of our individual and combined abilities in understanding of the data, to place the pieces in the most likely positions they fit. to give us an overall picture of the reality being experienced and our parts within that.
We don't just have to trust the process, but can understand why the process should be regarded as trustworthy.
Which circles around to the individual personality grown through the experience of the physical universe reflecting upon their data of experience before some image of God and if that God say's "nope. No matter that you think you should be or want to be erased, you are still required to trust the process, because that wish will not be granted to you..."sorry".
