5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Chap]

Hi Steel

My 4 year old niece is burdened with actual knowledge of the tooth fairy.

I continue to be surprised (and a little disappointed to be honest with you) how many times these silly and mocking comparisons are trotted out on this board - by the good people that happen to be in your particular camp.

...

Is it a blatant attempt to mock?
Is it a sincere effort to help us believers see how foolish we are?
Is it done to block and or stop sharing with one another?
Is it a performance aimed at a certain audience?

...

Both the first and the second, I think.

It is a legitimate challenge to say:

"Look, your parents brought you to believe in God, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, beings of whose existence there is no very obvious evidence, . As you got older, they probably encouraged/allowed you to stop believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy."

"If they had also indicated that God was in the same category, you'd have given him up just about as easily. And if they had never suggested you should believe in God, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, would you ever had started believing in any of them, God included?"

The question is not a disproof of the existence of a deity. But it does make one ask some searching questions about how people end up with a belief in a deity, and others don't, and never feel the lack of it.

[_ludwigm]

What if god were to tell me personally to decapitate a drunk? Is that a good thing?

If I use that communication as a basis for a theology that all drunks should be decapitated?

SSShh...
Don't wake up my wife!

[_RockSlider]

Is it a blatant attempt to mock?
Is it a sincere effort to help us believers see how foolish we are?
Is it done to block and or stop sharing with one another?
Is it a performance aimed at a certain audience?
An attempt to shore up our own conclusions?
Misplaced anger at so much of life wasted?

For me, I assume I fall into those last two I suggested, with the last one bleeding over to the second one.

I've had enough experiences, along with my compulsive/addictive personality that I still believe in a God. I was brought up with a worldview of what/who that God is. Unfortunately, like many literally believing TBM's before me, after realizing how crazy the LDS beliefs are, it takes a long while, but the same critical thoughts easily trickle into the Christian worldview as a whole.

I hope that I will show respect for Christian's, as I think for the most part they are not sucking the life out of people. It does not really matter who/what their god is, the organization gives to the members, not always taking. To me, Mormons are truly a cult in this aspect, they constantly take from the members, always asking for more. And yet what do they provide to the world outside the organization? I suspect very very little.

For me, recent threads like mythical Jesus are very hard for me, as I struggle with holding on to Christian views of who/what God is and what is expected by/of this God.

[_Ceeboo]

Is it a blatant attempt to mock?
Is it a sincere effort to help us believers see how foolish we are?
Is it done to block and or stop sharing with one another?
Is it a performance aimed at a certain audience?
An attempt to shore up our own conclusions?
Misplaced anger at so much of life wasted?


For me, I assume I fall into those last two I suggested, with the last one bleeding over to the second one.

I've had enough experiences, along with my compulsive/addictive personality that I still believe in a God. I was brought up with a worldview of what/who that God is. Unfortunately, like many literally believing TBM's before me, after realizing how crazy the LDS beliefs are, it takes a long while, but the same critical thoughts easily trickle into the Christian worldview as a whole.

I hope that I will show respect for Christian's, as I think for the most part they are not sucking the life out of people. It does not really matter who/what their god is, the organization gives to the members, not always taking. To me, Mormons are truly a cult in this aspect, they constantly take from the members, always asking for more. And yet what do they provide to the world outside the organization? I suspect very very little.

For me, recent threads like mythical Jesus are very hard for me, as I struggle with holding on to Christian views of who/what God is and what is expected by/of this God.

Brother Rock,

Thanks for the contribution.

I don't have much to say but I did want you to know that I read it......and I also wanted you to know that I personally found it to be loaded with deep value and a level of sincerity that is not very common on these boards.

Thanks again and peace,
Ceeboo

[_Sammy Jankins]

Hi Steel

My 4 year old niece is burdened with actual knowledge of the tooth fairy.

I continue to be surprised (and a little disappointed to be honest with you) how many times these silly and mocking comparisons are trotted out on this board - by the good people that happen to be in your particular camp.

for what it's worth - I think y'all should have a private meeting and openly discuss what you all really think it does when you compare a belief in a Creator/God with phrases like "tooth fairy" "Santa" "Flying spaghetti monster" "4 year old child" etc.

Is it a blatant attempt to mock?
Is it a sincere effort to help us believers see how foolish we are?
Is it done to block and or stop sharing with one another?
Is it a performance aimed at a certain audience?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

Peace,
Ceeboo

In a sense I use arguments like this all the time. If I see someone arguing why faith in Mormonism is virtuous or praiseworthy I like to swap out Mormonism for a less favorable religion like the Jehovah's witnesses. The purpose often is to force people to try to make the distinction why it applies in the Mormon case and not in another case, the point being I don't think they can.

I do think comparisons to the tooth fairy are usually not effective. It works better if draw the comparison against what others actually believe. But it is effective at times, for example, I think the original letter to the Kansas school board in which the writer made up the spaghetti monster, and insisted they teach about his noodily creation got the point across. It wasn't fair to play favorites to the majority religion.

I think it just works a lot better if you can find a religious or supernatural belief they respect and then force them to try to spilt hairs. If it works, then'll end up deconstructing their own argument.

[_KevinSim]

What if god were to tell me personally to decapitate a drunk? Is that a good thing?

If I use that communication as a basis for a theology that all drunks should be decapitated?

Why in the world are you considering basing your theology on the question of whether God wants you to decapitate a drunk?

[_huckelberry]

I'm also at a loss to understand how Joseph's legacy is a force for good in the world.

He drove home the idea that God actually wants to talk to us about Himself, that the Bible isn't the only source of information about God. I think that part of his legacy "is a force for good in the world."

Does Mormonism teach people that God will speak to us? I see more indication that it teaches that God spoke to Joseph Smith and speaks a little bit to those who continue his position of authority in the church. The rest of us are suppose to feel a yes yes in response to what they say.

Ok, that is not the whole picture. There are suggestions we receive personal guidance. I suppose you are aware that Christian believers of all kinds believe we can receive personal guidance from God.

[_Jersey Girl]

Please do tell, how 0 primary sources translates into actual knowledge.

My 4 year old niece is burdened with actual knowledge of the tooth fairy.

When you write, "primary sources", what exactly are you thinking about?

[_Jersey Girl]

General rundown:

1. Fake people.
2. Thoughtless people.
3. People who demean LDS.
4. Obnoxious building campaign.
5. People who were more concerned about what was taking place inside the church than they were about what was taking place outside the church.

Jersey Girl, are we talking about some church other than the LDS Church, that you exited?

Yes, wasn't that clear when I wrote:

Me, I'd be out the door never to return. How do I know? I've already exited a church because I couldn't tolerate some of the things I witnessed and still remain my authentic self.

[_KevinSim]

I brought in the term bastard as an illustration that the term bitchy was inappropriate, not to imply that anybody had actually used the term bastard; the term bastard was like the term bitch, I said. And it is.

In what way is 'bitchy' inappropriate in the same way as calling someone a bastard?

Both are derogatory, and both have meanings that connect them with characteristics beyond the control of the person being described.

I posted the definition of 'bitchy' which is a commonly accepted term of reference used to describe "malicious or spitefully critical" language. It is non gender related and the way I used it was completely non gender specific. The only person here who seems intent on making this about gender or parent-less children is you.

Why then does the definition I provided you declare that the term is gender specific?

You are completely projecting your own misplaced and prudish sense of self importance onto a dialogue between two consenting adult posters who have absolutely no qualms with each other. If you don't like the tone of interaction between Jersey Girl and I then...DON'T f*****g READ IT!

Wow, the Mormon Discussions Board would shrink by a factor of ten or more if people who don't like the things that are said in an article simply don't blankety-blank read those articles. And it's beyond the tone of interaction, and beyond prudishness even. Bitch (and its derived word bitchy) is as bad as any derogatory word that criticizes someone for characteristics beyond her/his control. I'm sure you can think of some; I'd explicitly mention them, but you'd probably yell at me for bringing them into the conversation.

How was it misplaced? You think it's appropriate to go around calling women's actions bitchy? I would say that calling women's actions bitchy is the thing that's misplaced.

Once again, the only person thinking this is gender specific terminology is you.

Ah, so the fact that "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitchy?s=t" and "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitch?s=t" indicate that the term you used is gender specific, doesn't lead you to believe that there might be some other people who think "this is gender specific terminology"?

It boggles my mind that you can call the actions of a woman like Jersey Girl bitchy, and I end up the person that needs to issue an apology. It seems rather that the person calling the actions bitchy should issue the apology, not the person who points out that using such terminology demonstrates bad taste.

It may boggle your mind but the malfunction is all yours. I didn't call the actions of a woman anything at all. I enquired of Jersey Girl whether or not said posters posts were going to continue to be "malicious or spitefully cruel". I get that you think you're being a chivalrous man, coming to the defence of a poor defenceless little woman who needs a Priesthood Holder to stand up for her. But you should realise that your whiny, prudish, chauvinistic, self important irrational little screen dumps are being far more derogatory towards the poster Jersey Girl than anything I posted. She is far more competent at understanding words and context and in handling acerbic posters, such as myself. She is twice the man you are.

I was doing nothing more than what Chap did to me. You used the word bitchy; I found it offensive and called your use of it bad taste. I used the word illegitimate child; Chap found it offensive and pointed it out to me. Was that an indication that Chap thought he was "being a chivalrous man"? I think it's safe to say he didn't see the need to come to the defense of a poor defenseless woman who needed a priesthood holder to stand up for her, since I'm not a woman, let alone a poor defenseless one. Was what Chap said an indication that he was whiny, prudish, self important, or irrational? Is Jersey Girl twice the man Chap is?

It's now too late for you to apologise to me.

IHAQ, do you often put deadlines on when people must apologize to you, that predate establishing that those people need to apologize to you?

But you should consider apologising to the board for the blatant derailment, overt sense self-importance, and for introducing the disgusting term you used for children without parents (I cannot bring myself to repeat it).

Once again it boggles my mind that you are so ardently defending the derogatory word bitchy but for some reason can't bring yourself to even repeat a word that is just as derogatory, just as critical of people for characteristics beyond their control. I can kind of understand that this is the case with you because you think that bitchy is not gender specific, but the two "dictionary.reference.com/browse" websites I provided up above clearly show that it is.

You should also apologise to Jersey Girl for assuming that, as a woman, she was unable to stand up for herself and needed you to come to her rescue. I treat women and men equally, you obviously think women are somehow unable to handle robust discussion.

Again, should Chap apologize to children of parents who weren't married when they were born, because he obviously thinks such children are somehow unable to handle robust discussion? It doesn't imply that a class of people are unable to handle discussion about them, to step in and call someone on the carpet for using derogatory terms denigrating that class.