Sextortionist sent on a Mission by LDS Church Apostle

[_Morley]

Whether or not you're stunned is of no matter to me. What does matter is that there is a false equivalency in comparing a FSM with the God of Judeo-Christian belief. It is just plain silly. Although, let it be said, there are some people that actually take this seriously.

Craziness.

By engaging in this false equivalency you are trashing all of the respected logicians, theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc. who have shown over time that taking the position of belief in a creator/God is reasonable.

Why are you being snarky? Please go back an read the exchanges in the original post.

You suggested the false equivalency when you brought up the FSM (as no one else had mentioned it until then). I expressed surprise. Why are you saying making the comparison is my doing? I am suggesting this may not be an great strategy on your part.

Please slow down and read.

[_Lemmie]

But the 'false equivalency' claimed isn't even the first issue:

There are only so many ways of viewing 'First Cause'.

The assumption of some sort of a supernatural 'First Cause' is mg's assumption. No reason is given for it, and no justification. To argue that the question is which type of first cause makes more sense is illogical, and bypasses the real issue.

Weasel words.

I'm assuming I won't get much response.

Regards,
MG

You're the one trying to argue from an assumption no one else is making, and "weasel" doesn't qualify as a legitimate response, but I see Morley is making the same point about your spaghetti monster reference. That's two levels of assumption you are simply imposing on the discussion. His suggestion is good.

[_Morley]

But the 'false equivalency' claimed isn't even the first issue:

There are only so many ways of viewing 'First Cause'.

The assumption of some sort of a supernatural 'First Cause' is mg's assumption. No reason is given for it, and no justification. To argue that the question is which type of first cause makes more sense is illogical, and bypasses the real issue.

Weasel words.

Actually, they're not weasel words. There does not have to be some sort of a supernatural 'First Cause' just because in you think there does.

[_Morley]

Whether or not you're stunned is of no matter to me. What does matter is that there is a false equivalency in comparing a FSM with the God of Judeo-Christian belief.

I'm not sure the CoJCoLDS god of flesh & bone and Jewish Indians is any more Judeo-Christian than my pantheist god.

[_Holy Ghost]

I’d like the Apostle who assigned this young man to his mission to explain again how missionary assignments are given by divine inspiration...

That process has been explained.

...Its...limited to markets that currently have opening and...Its a business process...believing members still like to believe there is some magical component to the whole thing.

This part of what you said I agree with, including the element of the metaphysical. And yes, moving the gospel throughout the world is, in a sense, a "business process". It couldn't happen without a corporate church.

Regards,
MG

Too bad Jesus didn't leave Peter with a corporation to run, right?

[_mentalgymnast]

There does not have to be some sort of a supernatural 'First Cause' just because in you think there does.

That is, of course, a given.

My point is as we are looking at 'first cause', does it make more sense to look at FSM or creator/God? Yes, there are other 'gods' options and/or no gods options. I'm simply whittling it down to two for the sake of discussion.

It is THAT question I've posed, FSM or creator/God (Judeo-Christian to be more specific), that I am not expecting to get a straight answer.

If I came across a bit snarky, I apologize. I suppose I get a bit worked up when I see, what I believe to be, false equivalencies thrown out there by folks that I think would/should know better...but do it anyways.

I guess that it does come back to what has been mentioned in regards to observation of the same phenomena from different reference points affecting outcome.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Too bad Jesus didn't leave Peter with a corporation to run, right?

If it had been possible, that's probably true. An apostasy may have been avoided. Goes to show that evolution and progress of mankind dictate what God can or cannot do.

Even a Being that we describe as 'all powerful'.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

MG doesn't realize--and perhaps can't comprehend--that his criticisms of an "absurd" FSM are echoed by Christians who declare Joseph Smith's inventions/revelations to be "absurd". Polygamy is absurd to Christians, likewise temple ordinances, garments, prohibitions on coffee, stories about the pre-existence, not to mention God having sex with Mary, treating the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham as scripture, etc., etc.

Mormonism is widely viewed as a "cult of Christianity" and a self-serving corporation. But that's so much better than a Flying Spaghetti Monster, amirite?

Tell you what, let's put these two 'first cause' gods next to each other and ask one simple question. Would you choose a supreme flying spaghetti monster as first cause for all of the people that have inhabited this planet or would you choose a supreme being in whose image we are created? Which makes more logical sense to you?

Regards,
MG

What makes logical sense to me is agnosticism. Choosing from your silly multiple choice framings of reality isn't required. Your false dichotomies and trilemmas and circular logic and presuppositions and whatever else keeps you spinning around your iron rod belong to you. You still can't produce a Nephite artifact and your prophets are frauds who can't spot a Hofmann. You've got nothing but tossing word salad and dodging challenges and making excuses for your ignorance.

[_Morley]

It is THAT question I've posed, FSM or creator/God (Judeo-Christian to be more specific), that I am not expecting to get a straight answer.

Why would anyone debate this with you when you yourself aren't posing it as a real option? You don't believe that FSM is a legitimate belief. To others this makes it look like you're settling up a false dichotomy because you're afraid you're losing the argument against other possibilities.

When, after that, you express moral outrage at what you introduced.... Let's just say it doesn't work in your favor.

[_Res Ipsa]

Why are you so afraid to acknowledge that your God bears responsibility for the suffering of his children?

Hypothetical: there is a creator/God.

Question: If this creator God bears ultimate responsibility for pathogens, earthquakes, and other natural mayhems...what do you DO with that? Keep in mind, this creator God is responsible for the fact that you exist also.

You can't uncreate God...so where do you go with that?

Regards,
MG

Where would I go with that? Well, let's see. I actually do have a father who, together with my mother, created me. What if my father behaved as your God? What if, at the time I was born, he sent me away to live with a couple of my siblings and never had any direct contact with me? What if the only things I knew about him were stories collected in books by some of my siblings -- few if any of whom even claimed to have direct contact with him? What if some of my siblings claimed to speak on my father's behalf, but they presented vastly different accounts of what he was saying? What if I knew he had specific behavioral expectations for me that would have serious conferences for me later on, but never clearly articulated what those were?

What if I learned that he placed some of my siblings with other siblings he knew were pedophiles or would beat children? Or that he injected them with smallpox, or polio, or ebola? That he introduced painful or crippling genetic conditions that would affect not only that sibling, but the descendants of that sibling? That he sent some of my siblings to live in extreme poverty, leading them to die of starvation or dehydration or diseases that prey upon the weak?

And what if he sat back and never lifted a finger to do anything about it?

And what if, given all that, he demanded that I worship him in order to win the prize of getting to live with him forever?

Where would I go with that? I can tell you where I wouldn't go. I wouldn't spend substantial time and effort making up stories to excuse his behavior. That's what abused spouses and children do with an abusive spouse or parent. I wouldn't give him a nickel, let alone 10% of my income, attend weekly meetings to talk about how wonderful he is and how much he loves his children, dedicate all my time, talents and whatnot to him, or, most of all, worship him. And if I get a chance to ever actually speak with him, I'll hold him accountable for all the pain and suffering he inflicted on my siblings.

But, most importantly, if an assumption I made led me to conclude that I had no choice but to worship this creator, I'd step back and seriously reconsider my assumptions: specifically the assumption that a creator/God exists. Once I do that, I can understand that both this creator/God and the elaborate stories that attempt to justify his behavior are all products of the human brain doing what it does naturally.

I've answered your question. Would you be so kind as to answer mine? It's right there at the top of this post.