All religions are dangerous?

[Guest]

marg,

JAK has done nothing but take peoples words exactly as the literal meaning reads in an anal fashion in order to score 'debating points', and has jumped to conclusions without clarification plenty of times in this thread. When speaking to JAK - if there is any issue with communication, it's always the 'other' persons fault for not being clear.

And yet here you are saying its Monikers fault for taking the literal words on the page and interpreting them in a perfectly sensible way. Yet more hypocrisy.

If Johns statement had been clearer - in the effort of clear and effective communication, then there would be no 'potential' misunderstanding to even discuss. And after the 'incorrect' call was made, John was still in the discussion. He still posted after it about something else, but didn't address the claim...
...why? He could have 'set Moniker straight' himself at the time. Why not?

(To be clear, I'm not having a go at John. He's not the one trying to throw some mud here...)

But I understand completely why you feel the need to try and not only place blame at Monikers feet, but construct it out of whole cloth while you are at it.


*I am JAKs total lack of surprise*

[_Moniker]

Thanks for the new sig line marg.

To get a sense of the of the pettiness and game playing Moniker employs which is a main factor for the length of this thread I'm bringing a short excerpt of the discussion from the telestial forum here in which I tried to get an answer for an accusation she made towards John. It took me a while to drag this much out of her but I finally found out why she accused John of making an incorrect statement. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=129238&highlight=#129238


John in this thread wrote: "Shinto was the state religion of Japan prior to the end of WWII."

Here is her reasoning for why she accuses him of making a false, incorrect statement :

"Prior means before -- before the "end of WWII".

Tell me how you read John's words and what they mean. He says prior to the end of WWII it was the "state religion" -- what does that mean? It means before the end of WWII it was the state religion. If there is a time "prior to the end of WWII" that it was NOT the state religion then his statement is incorrect.

A correct statement would have been:
Shinto was the state religion of Japan 'for a period' prior to the end of WWII."

Here's my reply from telestial: :)

Ah! So I take his statement at face value and I'm assuming? I wonder why John didn't have an issue with my reply? Glad marg was here to take care of my conversation with John! Thanks! :)

How's this -- according to John's statement it would be perfectly acceptable to state that in the year 1642 Shintoism was the "state religion" of Japan.

Ah! It makes sense now. Thanks marg! ;P

You misrepresent ME by stating:

If your reasoning for saying John is incorrect is because you were assuming he was talking about the entire history of Shintoism then it is your assumption which is the problem.

My reply in telestial:

by the way, I didn't say John didn't know what he was talking about. Quote that for me, please. Nor did I say "JOHN was incorrect". I said "this is incorrect" -- "this" being the statement.

Read closely, carefully, again and again -- but that "confusion" of yours probably doesn't help matters, eh?

;P

Uhoh. Please, quote for me saying "JOHN IS INCORRECT". Woopsie daisy. ;P

;P

;P

;P

This is fun!

[_marg]

You misrepresent ME by stating:

"If your reasoning for saying John is incorrect is because you were assuming he was talking about the entire history of Shintoism then it is your assumption which is the problem."

My reply in telestial:
"by the way, I didn't say John didn't know what he was talking about. Quote that for me, please. Nor did I say "JOHN was incorrect". I said "this is incorrect" -- "this" being the statement.

Read closely, carefully, again and again -- but that "confusion" of yours probably doesn't help matters, eh?

You are once again illustrating just how petty minded you are.

John makes a statement
Moniker says it is incorrect.

Logical conclusion based on premises; John is incorrect in the statement he made according to Moniker.

I say Moniker pointed out John was incorrect and then she demands proof.

So I suppose Moniker you could tell me you gave birth to a child and if I assumed you were female..you'd say those weren't your words, you want proof.

[_Yoda]

You misrepresent ME by stating:

"If your reasoning for saying John is incorrect is because you were assuming he was talking about the entire history of Shintoism then it is your assumption which is the problem."

My reply in telestial:
"by the way, I didn't say John didn't know what he was talking about. Quote that for me, please. Nor did I say "JOHN was incorrect". I said "this is incorrect" -- "this" being the statement.

Read closely, carefully, again and again -- but that "confusion" of yours probably doesn't help matters, eh?

You are once again illustrating just how petty minded you are.

John makes a statement
Moniker says it is incorrect.

Logical conclusion based on premises; John is incorrect in the statement he made according to Moniker.

I say Moniker pointed out John was incorrect and then she demands proof.

So I suppose Moniker you could tell me you gave birth to a child and if I assumed you were female..you'd say those weren't your words, you want proof.

Good grief. Is anyone else as bored with this conversation as I am?

[_JAK]

Here's my favorite quote of JAK's with no other statements surrounding it! He states in response to me talking about the Japanese culture:

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Weeee......... this is fun!

Can you reference the post in which this appeared? A link would be courteous.

JAK

Sure, no problem. The 7th quote of mine in green relates aspects of the Japanese culture and your reply is directly underneath it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 221#127221

You cut that quote up too: Here was my original quote:

If I could live in their world, I would! I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different. Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!

Hi Moniker,

Ah on page 4 of this now 24 page length thread is the post. My sincere thanks for the reference.

Let’s recognize that the post to which you referred was a comprehensive response to your previous comments. The single line you cited followed an analysis regarding your claims about the Amish not about the “Japanese culture.”

Several times in that post, I restated the central point and issue with regard to the danger from ignorance. The risk to which I referred was from ignorance as a result of religious doctrine and dogma.

In that entire post the word “Japanese” does not appear. In the post cited above,

you state:
Sure, no problem. The 7th quote of mine in green relates aspects of the Japanese culture and your reply is directly underneath it.

Again, in the entire post no mention of “Japanese.” The word "Japanese" does not exist in the post.

The word culture occurs and it is connected with the Amish.

So the risk is present as a result of religious doctrine in Amish Christianity which blocks their members from access to information and education.

I thank you for providing the link back to page 4. I also thank you because it demonstrates how you muddy discussion scrambling one thing with another in such a way as to make gibberish a well constructed, analytical address of exactly what you stated verbatim as I addressed each part of what you had previously written.

The organization was with your comments clearly identified in green with your name and with my response in black immediately following what you had stated.

And now on page 24 (on my screen) you refer erroneously to “Japanese” you claim is on page 4 of the discussion. It was not there. That response, was to what you had stated previously and it was addressing the point and issue:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Three times in that post, I stated the central point of address.

And now you state "Weeee......... this is fun!"

My sincere thanks to you for providing the link to the post you had in mind. Clearly, I would never have found it in hours of searching since it had absolutely nothing to do with “Japanese.”

I also pointed out that your interest or your capacity to live as Amish live had no bearing on the issue in the discussion with regard to how misinformation, ignorance, and religious dogma places people at risk (danger).

JAK

[_Moniker]

You misrepresent ME by stating:

"If your reasoning for saying John is incorrect is because you were assuming he was talking about the entire history of Shintoism then it is your assumption which is the problem."

My reply in telestial:
"by the way, I didn't say John didn't know what he was talking about. Quote that for me, please. Nor did I say "JOHN was incorrect". I said "this is incorrect" -- "this" being the statement.

Read closely, carefully, again and again -- but that "confusion" of yours probably doesn't help matters, eh?

You are once again illustrating just how petty minded you are.

John makes a statement
Moniker says it is incorrect.

Logical conclusion based on premises; John is incorrect in the statement he made according to Moniker.

I say Moniker pointed out John was incorrect and then she demands proof.

So I suppose Moniker you could tell me you gave birth to a child and if I assumed you were female..you'd say those weren't your words, you want proof.

Good grief. Is anyone else as bored with this conversation as I am?

Been bored since page 4! Am I annoying anyone yet? Hope so!

by the way, what's this thread about? ;P

[_Moniker]

You misrepresent ME by stating:

"If your reasoning for saying John is incorrect is because you were assuming he was talking about the entire history of Shintoism then it is your assumption which is the problem."

My reply in telestial:
"by the way, I didn't say John didn't know what he was talking about. Quote that for me, please. Nor did I say "JOHN was incorrect". I said "this is incorrect" -- "this" being the statement.

Read closely, carefully, again and again -- but that "confusion" of yours probably doesn't help matters, eh?

You are once again illustrating just how petty minded you are.

John makes a statement
Moniker says it is incorrect.

Logical conclusion based on premises; John is incorrect in the statement he made according to Moniker.

I say Moniker pointed out John was incorrect and then she demands proof.

So I suppose Moniker you could tell me you gave birth to a child and if I assumed you were female..you'd say those weren't your words, you want proof.

Uh, I wanted a quote 'cause you earlier asked me to do it...... and I was told I was misconstruing comments repeatedly in the thread.... etc.... etc....... I just wanted to be like you and JAK! I'm always on the outside looking in.... :(

Sheesh, it's not as much fun when I have to explain my frivolity. :)

[_marg]

Good grief. Is anyone else as bored with this conversation as I am?

Well what you could do Liz is get back to that thread you started in the Celestial forum in which you posed the extremely fascinating question of - Did God command polygamy or did he just tolerate it? Now that certainly is not a boring question.

[_Moniker]

Oh, tired of this thread............

blabbity blabbity blabbity JAK -- you told me I wouldn't go without certain conveniences -- I told you "I have lived in a different culture where".... and I rattled off some of the things in that culture -- just so happens it was Japan.

You thought the Amish pee on the streets? RIGHT NEXT TO ME!? :O

I don't think they do that.......

[_JAK]

Oh, tired of this thread............

blabbity blabbity blabbity JAK -- you told me I wouldn't go without certain conveniences -- I told you "I have lived in a different culture where".... and I rattled off some of the things in that culture -- just so happens it was Japan.

You thought the Amish pee on the streets? RIGHT NEXT TO ME!? :O

I don't think they do that.......

Moniker,

You continue to misrepresent. You have no direct quote, but rely on flawed paraphrase. In addition, I made no statement in the post you referred regarding your failed attempt to read my mind.

From this post

Moniker stated:
If I could live in their world, I would!

I’m skeptical. What’s preventing you from having all your power turned off, cars removed, the purchase of horses and buggies and clothing which matches that of the Amish you know?

Moniker stated:
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different.

JAK:
It’s not relevant to the issue of “Dangers of Religion.” You would not be doing it for religious reasons. You have modern convenience presently and I assume access to quality medical care. What is the relevance to the issue?

Moniker stated:
Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!

JAK:
Obviously, you’re not following. The issue is “Dangers of Religion.” Religious mythology relies on truth by assertion. The danger in that is that that conclusions are unreliable or false. It has nothing to do with a choice you make personally about where to spend time or observe people in other religious/cultural environments.

(Above from post to which you refer)

You continue to distort and misrepresent. Since your "tired of this thread" and since you can't get it right, why not stop posting.

JAK