Jump to content

Steve J

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About Steve J

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. He did not post as me. I copied and pasted what he posted somewhere else, and he then verified that the 7th part of the podcast was coming out the next day. (which was today or yesterday... my days are jumbled) DB is not Steve J. Apologies to DB and whoever thought that was DB for the confusion.
  2. True... I thought it was obvious since he has his own account. Next time I quote somebody I will make sure it is in quotations
  3. Tomorrow Morning we release Pt 7 of my ongoing conversation with Jim Bennett. This conversation was my favorite. I personally feel like Mormonism when exposed in a long form real time conversation forces the defender to show that the faithful position requires a ton of allowances and qualifiers. When these allowances and qualifiers show up over and over again, one is confronted with having to decide if such a position is rational or logical. For instance if I want to argue in favor of a flat earth and I enter a 15 hour conversation over whether a flat earth is defensible or not, my position is going to require numerous extra allowances and qualifiers. Each person willing to have an open mind must then decide what level of rationality or irrationality they will allow in their brain to maintain a position or change positions. This part 7 is for me the most beautiful example of this throughout our 7 part series. Every person after listening to these 7 parts is confronted with how many allowances and qualifiers Mormonism requires in order for the faithful position to be believed. Each person must decide or at least their brain must (our minds are exceptional at maintaining beliefs in the face of contradictions) decide if Mormonism requires too much or if the faithful view is truly tenable. Then one must confront or their brain again must confront the difference in allowances and qualifiers needed for the critics conclusion to be held. Our minds do best at moving towards rational and logical thought when sacred beliefs are concerned when we are overwhelmed with the irrationality of our argument and weakness of the evidence or the preponderance of the critics evidence and best when these two are juxtaposed against each other... ...In the end the purpose of the project for me was to expose Mormonism to such a long form conversation, allow the data to be laid out and discussed openly by both sides, and then allow the listener to make their own conclusions. My goal was for people to confront a Mormonism they want to be what it claims and the data that compels it isn't what it claims. That for me took a tightrope act. And I am extremely happy with the end result. ... Jim did great. Mormonism laid out objectively..... doesn't BIll Reel
  4. Yea, there was nothing irrational about my response and I did not come in guns blazing.... CFR
  5. I’m not sure specifically what subject to talk about that hasn’t been discussed in depth on this board. Others can add stuff too
  6. What did I say about him today at all????? Gosh, you are paranoid
  7. My last comments were not anything about Bill Reel. So so I have no idea what you are talking about ??? You can calm down about defending him from these alleged vicious personal attacks. Plus, my general comments are only matching the overall general discussion from others about the podcasts, so I would appreciate if you go 🚔 (police) others as well Well, I’m out again unless someone posts something specific that I feel a post from me can contribute to the discussion.
  8. I did not mean to share anything private. Sorry if that offended you. Since you posted something later similar to the message you sent, I did not think I was violating confidentiality. I also thought that bias wasn’t something unique or relevatory. I also admit that my bias also plays a role in why I don’t find this something “historic” or a “bloodbath.” Please accept my apologies While not saying I agree with everything ever produced by Fairmormon(and that itself would be impossible bc it itself takes varying, and sometime opposite views, on issues, I don’t view that their arguments in general make God “extremely illogical or inconsistent to me” And I have no problem with you shaping a narrative and theology that fits your belief of divinity
  9. “ends up making us think really illogical and silly things about God” ... I have to disagree with you about this statement and as you admit your bias is why you view it as a “blood bath”
  10. I did and I got confused in writing with 6 parts and 12 hours. But thanks for being consistent with your expectations
  11. I’m done posting. 1. Bc it’s hard to get specific about a 6 hour poscast. Maybe I will comment later if the discussion gets more focused on a certain part.. My main feeling throughout listening was frustration in Reel’s theological framing of the different discussions and certain conclusions. And I wasn’t trolling. I was commenting against what Is disingenous and self-promoting framing of this conversation by having his fellow podcaster frame it in the way he did and then have Reel simply label him as “a listener” in this forum. While Bill Reel podcasting is not generally for me, I have no issue with people listening to the podcast and found the general interaction between the two men on this podcast congenial and mostly productive
  12. I listened to the majority of it. I can't claim I listened to every single bit of a 6 hour podcast
  13. A specific example is that I at no point picked my jaw up from off the ground
  14. Well, saying someone is unimpressed with how someone represents and acts, their knowledge and interpretation of the material, and theology is not personal attacks
  • Create New...