Stuffing A Turkey Through The Beak: Leading With Doubt

[volgadon]

It's amusing to see the condescending thinking of some LDS leaders when it comes to other people who were truly great in civilization like Socrates. So God gave him morals eh? Wasn't he homosexual?

Kerry, I doubt you'll find that LDS leaders are claiming that homosexuals cannot be moral people, so this reads more like a strawman than the kind of rigour you claim is lacking in "religion."

[CASteinman]

"It's amusing to see the condescending thinking of some LDS leaders "

Irony. Is it performance art?

I don't hear nearly the quality of preaching from the Rameumptom these days as I used to.... But it is taller now so maybe I can't hear it from the lofty distance.

Edited April 17, 2013 by CASteinman

[Johnnie Cake]

The one benefit I see coming from Holland’s address is that he has given permission for member’s of the church who don't "Know" to state in testimony meeting that they “believe” rather than “know”.

I believe that this will make for a much more honest expression of faith or lack thereof and thus lessen the guilt some members feel in not “knowing”

[Ahab]

Why would it matter when a person accepts "God"? Is God in a hurry? Is the world under some kind of time constraint? Is God playing a game of "time's up"? Jesus Christ is Muhammad's God, Muhammad just didn't know it. Jesus Christ is everyone's God, they just don't know it yet. That is, if Jesus Christ is not a further creation of religious evolution, which theory is strongly supported by the physical evidence. The one fact that covers them all is that "God" is the Necessary Cause, and nothing exists without that Necessary Cause. A larger and, imho, more charitable view of humanity seeking Joy is that all individuals are intended to find it, no matter how "long" that quest takes, and only God directs those infinitely varied and individual quests for Joy. That comes from my 'satiable yet finite imagination, and I cannot believe that God is less charitable than I am....

There isn't a time limit to eternal progression, itself, but there is going to come a time when this mortal existence has served its purpose for everyone who has or is destined to become mortal on this planet for our Father's purposes, and when that time comes all of us will be judged according to our works, at that time. Thus, there will be many classifications of people, as far as what we have become at that point, and at that time we will be sent to a place where our Father has determined is the best place for us to live. Not all will be prepared to live the laws of the Celestial order of heaven, so that won't be the best place for all people to live, but there will be a place prepared for everyone according to how well or how poorly they have prepared themselves to live the laws of the place where they will go.

Savy, now? You've seen the kind of crap some people on this planet are doing, haven't you? Wouldn't you like to live in a place where you don't have to put up with all the bad things people are doing? If you know better than to do the bad things some people do and you want to try to "rehabilitate" or teach people how to live a better life by not doing those bad things, you can still do that as much as you want to by visiting them when you want to. You just won't have to put up with it if you don't want to, as if you don't have any choice but to live on the same planet with the people who do those bad things. And if you don't think they're so bad and you can live with all of that just fine, maybe even doing some of those bad things yourself, you will have that option too and it may turn out that is the place where our Father determines is the best place for you to live.

[CASteinman]

The one benefit I see coming from Holland’s address is that he has given permission for member’s of the church who don't "Know" to state in testimony meeting that they “believe” rather than “know”.

I believe that this will make for a much more honest expression of faith or lack thereof and thus lessen the guilt some members feel in not “knowing”

Hmmm...I never felt I needed permission. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?

[Questing Beast]

There isn't a time limit to eternal progression, itself, but there is going to come a time when this mortal existence has served its purpose for everyone who has or is destined to become mortal on this planet for our Father's purposes, and when that time comes all of us will be judged according to our works, at that time. Thus, there will be many classifications of people, as far as what we have become at that point, and at that time we will be sent to a place where our Father has determined is the best place for us to live. Not all will be prepared to live the laws of the Celestial order of heaven, so that won't be the best place for all people to live, but there will be a place prepared for everyone according to how well or how poorly they have prepared themselves to live the laws of the place where they will go.

Savy, now? You've seen the kind of crap some people on this planet are doing, haven't you? Wouldn't you like to live in a place where you don't have to put up with all the bad things people are doing? If you know better than to do the bad things some people do and you want to try to "rehabilitate" or teach people how to live a better life by not doing those bad things, you can still do that as much as you want to by visiting them when you want to. You just won't have to put up with it if you don't want to, as if you don't have any choice but to live on the same planet with the people who do those bad things. And if you don't think they're so bad and you can live with all of that just fine, maybe even doing some of those bad things yourself, you will have that option too and it may turn out that is the place where our Father determines is the best place for you to live.

Savvy, but I grew up with this stuff.

That's the trouble, making sense out of the evidence to fit a singular, dogmatic, EXCLUSIVE paradigm. I can't seem to do that anymore, or rather, I can't seem to find the need or desire to keep trying to do that anymore. I just don't believe in singular, dogmatic, exclusive paradigms....

Edited April 17, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

Savvy, but I grew up with this stuff.

That's the trouble, making sense out of the evidence to fit a singular, dogmatic, EXCLUSIVE paradigm. I can't seem to do that anymore, or rather, I can't seem to find the need or desire to keep trying to do that anymore. I just don't believe in singular, dogmatic, exclusive paradigms....

They're still real even though you don't believe in them anymore, and they're exclusive only to those who meet the qualifications of a particular category.

[Questing Beast]

"Particular category", forever? Come on. That's not even a reasonable theory for immortal beings. So we arrive at a pinprick in space-time that we call mortality, it lasts literally less than a pinprick in fact is measureless to immortals, since immortality is endless therefore without quantifiable duration: and within this pinprick of existence the soul suddenly stops and gets set in its ways. Don't you see anything messed up with that? It makes "God" into a game-playing puppet master, creating some souls to be mediocre, some to be abysmal, some to be really, really, really bad, and some to be not too bad, some to be special, some to be really, really, really special, and some to be so-so, some to be brilliant and some to be as dumb as a rock, etc. There is no escape from what "God" created you to be, you just have to lump it if you don't like it.

All that we get from a "heaven and hell", "saved and damned" paradigm is "categories" of human beings. And the really wicked part of it is that we get to categorize here and now instead of having to wait and see. We've been given the scripture that categorizes everybody quite neatly already.

Trouble is that we don't have any clue what we are talking about, and anyone who disagrees with the scripture has just as much legitimacy as someone who lives by it. No breaking of the deadlock is on offer, just opinion, endless and repetitive down the ages. "Nothing new under the sun."

A much bigger paradigm says that all sapient beings are "God" manifesting without full knowledge of the fullness of "God", and with differing personalities and gifts and weaknesses, and all of this is done because it is better than sitting with ALONENESS in the Void doing/being nothing. Why "God" would create personalities that just never "get it" is beyond reason. Such a deliberate act would be evil. But to create personalities that seek forever to know the Source, the Cause of their being, through experience that never ends, with the payoff as increased wisdom and Joy, makes good sense to me. It feels right....

Edited April 17, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Kerry, I doubt you'll find that LDS leaders are claiming that homosexuals cannot be moral people, so this reads more like a strawman than the kind of rigour you claim is lacking in "religion."

I know for a fact they won't praise him for being a holy homosexual...... eh?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Thanks for that lovely snarl, Kerry. It not only uplifted me, but helped me see the "truth" so much clearer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I didn't snarl, I asked a legitimate logical question. Is logic beyond you now Wade?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Kerry,

Earlier in the thread you stated the following.

I totally get where you're coming from with the above. I've done that for years myself. What I'm confused about is that every attempt I've made (I'm not really reading many other comments) to begin a dialogue that tests your assertions has been ignored by you. For example, the remark you made about Socrates and homosexuality to which I replied. You are so far off base with that, you're not even in the ball park.

Do you welcome challenge of the assertions you've made here or did you want the reader to take on a passive role? What is with what appears to be the hit and runs?

You claim to buy into testing assertions but you won't permit your own to be tested? What's up with that?

You up for it or not? How about let the folks know, who are reading and responding to your posts, if you're not, so we aren't wasting our time with this?

Sorry. I am rather busy and so all I have time for is to show that the thinking going on in so many areas just doesn't quite cut the mustard. When I get more time I shall let you know, and you won't have to waste time trying to catch me between hit and runs.....

[Kerry A. Shirts]

You are very right.

In fact some even doubt that Socrates existed. Others see him as mostly a legendary figure though he is described in highly ambiguous terms.

http://en.wikipedia....ocratic_problem

Whenever this is claimed of Jesus though, you would vehemently deny it right? There is more evidence that Jesus didn't exist than that Socrates didn't exist. I'm not saying this is my belief, I am saying the evidence is even less in favor of Jesus existing. Who's really to say?

[canard78]

They're still real even though you don't believe in them anymore, and they're exclusive only to those who meet the qualifications of a particular category.

I think Mark Twain was onto something:

"I do not see how eternal punishment hereafter could accomplish any good end, therefore I am not able to believe in it. To chasten a man in order to perfect him might be reasonable enough; to annihilate him when he shall have proved himself incapable of reaching perfection mught be reasonable enough; but to roast him forever for the mere satisfaction of seeing him roast would not be reasonable -- even the atrocious God imagined by the Jews would tire of the spectacle eventually."

-- Mark Twain

The notion that our eternal progress will be limited by a 60-80 stint in imperfect 'suits' in the context of infinite years eternity is a little strange.

I think this life is more about getting to know our true selves and manifesting it in our behaviour. If we do not progress for the eternities it will be more likely because we, individually, are comfortable with mediocrity, not because of some punitive measure imposed on us for a struggle with weakness in mortality.

I appreciate some will say that sounds a lot like a fulfilment of a Book of Mormon prophesy (eat drink and be merry etc...) it's not intended to. It doesn't excuse apathy and ignorance but does point towards the eternal nature of the power of grace and repentance.

[wenglund]

I didn't snarl, I asked a legitimate logical question.

Could you please show me where there is a question mark at the end of this snarly statement by you (to which I was responding): "It's amusing to see the condescending thinking of some LDS leaders when it comes to other people who were truly great in civilization like Socrates."

Is logic beyond you now Wade?

No, but evidently the difference between questions (logical or otherwise) and opinions (snarly or otherwise) seems to be beyond you. I don't recall that being a problem for you before you turned critic and embarked on your quixotic quest for "truth." Are you trying to confirm Novak's law?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2013 by wenglund

[volgadon]

I know for a fact they won't praise him for being a holy homosexual...... eh?

I won't praise Jung for some of his racist beliefs, nor would I praise Rabbie Burns for supporting the Highland clearances, but the former was a brilliant psychoanalyst, and the latter a marvelous poet. In a similar vein, Paul Robeson's extra-marital affair doesn't invalidate his struggle against oppression.

[Jersey Girl]

Sorry. I am rather busy and so all I have time for is to show that the thinking going on in so many areas just doesn't quite cut the mustard. When I get more time I shall let you know, and you won't have to waste time trying to catch me between hit and runs.....

That's just it. You aren't "showing" anything. You are making repeated assertions without backing them up. You assert that Socrates was homosexual. What proof have you for this? Let's see it.

You can do better than this.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Jersey Girl

[volgadon]

Sorry. I am rather busy and so all I have time for is to show that the thinking going on in so many areas just doesn't quite cut the mustard.

Somehow I doubt you had object lessons in mind.

[Bikeemikey]

Are you trying to confirm Novak's law?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What is Novak's law?

[Jersey Girl]

Whenever this is claimed of Jesus though, you would vehemently deny it right? There is more evidence that Jesus didn't exist than that Socrates didn't exist. I'm not saying this is my belief, I am saying the evidence is even less in favor of Jesus existing. Who's really to say?

I am reading these statements and thinking to myself that I can't let you make them without challenge. As I stated previously, you can do better than this.

When you say that there is more evidence that Jesus didn't exist than that Socrates didn't exist.

And that

The evidence is even less in favor of Jesus existing.

You are stating a belief. Without proof for your assertions, your assertions are reduced to belief status. Not to mention the fact that your assertions are plainly false.

What you've been laying down is nothing new to me. It's not controversial. It's not innovative. It's certainly not well thought out. It is the simple repetition of every skeptical argument that I've ever read or engaged online.

[teddyaware]

I am reading these statements and thinking to myself that I can't let you make them without challenge. As I stated previously, you can do better than this.

When you say that there is more evidence that Jesus didn't exist than that Socrates didn't exist.

And that

The evidence is even less in favor of Jesus existing.

You are stating a belief. Without proof for your assertions, your assertions are reduced to belief status. Not to mention the fact that your assertions are plainly false.

What you've been laying down is nothing new to me. It's not controversial. It's not innovative. It's certainly not well thought out. It is the simple repetition of every skeptical argument that I've ever read or engaged online.

Give that girl a cigar! Or how about some chocolate covered strawberrys...

P.S. Are you from Jersey (the Channel Island) or from New Jersey? I've lived in NJ my entire life

[Jersey Girl]

Give that girl a cigar! Or how about some chocolate covered strawberrys...

P.S. Are you from Jersey (the Channel Island) or from New Jersey? I've lived in NJ my entire life

New Jersey.

[wenglund]

What is Novak's law?

Years ago it was an inside joke among LDS apologists. Kerry would likely know about it. See Novak's Rule HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[teddyaware]

New Jersey.

I live in North Jersey. The town of Oakland in western Bergen County, to be exact.

Edited April 18, 2013 by teddyaware

[Bikeemikey]

Years ago it was an inside joke among LDS apologists. Kerry would likely know about it. See Novak's Rule HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nice.

[Jersey Girl]

I live in North Jersey. The town of Oakland in western Bergen County, to be exact.

But why?

I'm from the Shore. So instead of a cigar or chocolate covered strawberries, I'll take a Rita's Cherry Gelato if you don't mind!

Edited April 18, 2013 by Jersey Girl