A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

[_Kishkumen]

I'd still be tempted to make fun of any Scientologist, though.

I have many times, but I bet there are plenty of thoughtful Scientologists.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'd still be tempted to make fun of any Scientologist, though.

I have many times, but I bet there are plenty of thoughtful Scientologists.

I'll bet you're right. I really just want to make fun of Tom Cruise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4PNpFjKVfY

[_Kishkumen]

I'll bet you're right. I really just want to make fun of Tom Cruise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4PNpFjKVfY

I am not a big fan. I think the last Cruise film I watched was Vanilla Sky.

I don't think much of the celebrity Scientologists, except maybe Beck.

[Guest]

An intelligent person recognizes that human beings are a mix of cognition and emotion that intermingle in ways we are not always cognizant of.

I think human beings are a mix of cognition and emotion. I do however know many intelligent people that do not recognize this, or at least profess they do not. I know many intelligent people that are Mormons that do not recognize that their fealty to LDS truth claims are emotionally driven, but claim that they 'know', and 'bear testimony' of knowing. To wit, Mormon Scholars Testify.

I think they are misleading to others when they profess what are their emotions to be something supernatural. Their burning bosoms are, in the final analysis, interpretations of their emotions, interpretations they attempt to pass off on others. It is not disrespectful to label this a scam.

All of this BS about being truly rational is naïve.

I am not sure anyone on MDB has claimed to be devoid of emotions, or thus, 'truly rational'. I think LDS critics here have castigated those that wallow in and indulge emotions at the expense of reason. My read of the critics here are that they APPEAL to reason over APPEAL to emotions in mankind's search for truth.

The atheist can be as superstitious as the religious person, and probably most of us are in our own way.

Can be, on an individual basis. But as Polygamy Porter in a recent post explained, he and his children are apathetic atheists, or apatheists, concerning themselves with the world that they know. In the absence of empirical, observable evidence for the question of the existence of a deity, the question is as fanciful as is the question of the existence of Santa Claus. Both concepts provide emotional comfort, albeit at different stages of life. But there is no more evidence for the existence of one than the other. There is nothing about the question of the existence of deity or not that is worthy of my time and attention, at least not unless and until this entity makes itself known to us.

Religious practice can be a practical, even humble response to the virtues and liabilities of the human condition.

I don't see the practicality in giving credit for anything 'good' that someone does to deity, an entity for which there is no evidence of existence. But that man/devil is the source of everything 'bad'. Man is as entitled to credit for the good, as responsible for his bad. Emotionally speaking, it is not practical nor healthy emotionally to espouse the imbalance religionists preach to induce guilt and self-loathing in the listener.

[_Kishkumen]

I know many intelligent people that are Mormons that do not recognize that their fealty to LDS truth claims are emotionally driven, but claim that they 'know', and 'bear testimony' of knowing. To wit, Mormon Scholars Testify.

I think they are misleading to others when they profess what are their emotions to be something supernatural. Their burning bosoms are, in the final analysis, interpretations of their emotions, interpretations they attempt to pass off on others. It is not disrespectful to label this a scam.

Of course it is disrespectful. You are imputing dishonesty when you actually don't know the internal motivations of the person in question. So, someone believes that something divine inspires his or her mind and thoughts and you call it mere emotion. This person doesn't agree. The person who disagrees with you isn't a liar. That person has a different understanding of the world and how it works. Where's the scam, sock?

I am not sure anyone on MDB has claimed to be devoid of emotions, or thus, 'truly rational'. I think LDS critics here have castigated those that wallow in and indulge emotions at the expense of reason. My read of the critics here are that they APPEAL to reason over APPEAL to emotions in mankind's search for truth.

OK. Well, again, the religionists and atheists are talking past each other. You label their experience a certain way such that it gets half way to winning your argument. Such as:

We all know that people believe in God based on *mere* emotion, when superior reason dictates that there is no God.

Game, set, match. Thanks for playing!

Both concepts provide emotional comfort, albeit at different stages of life. But there is no more evidence for the existence of one than the other. There is nothing about the question of the existence of deity or not that is worthy of my time and attention, at least not unless and until this entity makes itself known to us.

So, there you go. Since I have a priori excluded the experience of divine things as bogus, I can say that this illusory entity has never made itself known to me, or anyone else for that matter. Ergo, I can dismiss it as a fantasy on the same level of sophistication as Santa Claus.

Impressive.

I don't see the practicality in giving credit for anything 'good' that someone does to deity, an entity for which there is no evidence of existence. But that man/devil is the source of everything 'bad'. Man is as entitled to credit for the good, as responsible for his bad. Emotionally speaking, it is not practical nor healthy emotionally to espouse the imbalance religionists preach to induce guilt and self-loathing in the listener.

You are aware that Mormon theology has a concept known as moral agency, in which human beings are held responsible, and given credit, for their own choices, correct?

I mean, I don't know where you are digging up this crap, but it does not look like LDS theology to me.

Or maybe I am just woefully misinformed.

[_Sammy Jankins]

If someone who has shelved the intellectual dimension of faith can be said to have a "thoughtful faith", who if anyone would be considered not to have a "thoughtful faith"?

I don't think shelving intellectual questions seemingly wholesale is healthy or sustainable. We can respect their decisions and acknowledge their struggles, but I wouldn't describe it as a thoughtful approach.

[_sock puppet]

I don't see the practicality in giving credit for anything 'good' that someone does to deity, an entity for which there is no evidence of existence. But that man/devil is the source of everything 'bad'. Man is as entitled to credit for the good, as responsible for his bad. Emotionally speaking, it is not practical nor healthy emotionally to espouse the imbalance religionists preach to induce guilt and self-loathing in the listener.

You are aware that Mormon theology has a concept known as moral agency, in which human beings are held responsible, and given credit, for their own choices, correct?

I mean, I don't know where you are digging up this crap, but it does not look like LDS theology to me.

Or maybe I am just woefully misinformed.

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

[_Kishkumen]

If someone who has shelved the intellectual dimension of faith can be said to have a "thoughtful faith", who if anyone would be considered not to have a "thoughtful faith"?

I don't think shelving intellectual questions seemingly wholesale is healthy or sustainable. We can respect their decisions and acknowledge their struggles, but when push comes to shove I just wouldn't describe it as a thoughtful approach.

Shelving some issues could, indeed, be a thoughtful thing to do, if one determines that it is not the time to address that issue.

Of course I understand why many people will say that struggling with religious faith isn't worth it. It is not for me to say whether it is or not for anyone else but myself. So, yeah, go be happy dismissing the supernatural. But why on earth do any of us feel qualified to crack on others for making a different decision?

Maybe it won't work out for John. Maybe it will. I think that, in the end, each person has their own life journey, which has an element of mystery to it we will never penetrate. Because we never really walked in their shoes, nor could we.

Everyone is so needy. We feel compelled to ridicule those who choose differently. Yep. Well all do it.

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't think that approach works in the end, and may account for the fact that he has gone back and forth between activity/inactivity so many times.

So how many times has JD gone back and forth between activity/inactivity? If he's going to council people about religious issues, this would be nice to know.

If you found out your marriage councilor had been divorced four times you might consider his advice in a different light. Maybe as coming from someone with a lot of experience but not a great deal of wisdom.

[_Kishkumen]

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

Come now, sock puppet. You haven't come this far to believe that proof-texting suffices in an argument, have you?

For God so loved the world....

There, I won.