Love the Bamboozled; Attack the Deception

[_Analytics]

From the old ZLMB days, I recall a frequent line of argumentation that had something to do with the need to treat “positive beliefs” and “negative beliefs” differently. The idea was that if a belief was inherently positive (e.g. I believe the church is true), then it is in general a virtuous thing to share this “positive” belief. But if the belief is “negative” (e.g. I believe the church is false), then it is uncivilized, if not down right malevolent, to share it.

The apparent objective of this was to condemn anti-Mormons for trying to recruit people from Mormonism while simultaneously justifying Mormons who try to recruit people into Mormonism.

The flaw with this is obvious: simply, if you believe in the inherent value of truth, then you are done a service when you are disabused of a false notion. This shouldn’t be a radical concept for Mormons. According to the “positive” sacred history, the religion began with God sharing “negative truths” with Joseph Smith: all the churches were wrong, the hearts of the priests were far from God, and they had a form of godliness and denied the power thereof.

It seems to me that apologists have pretty much given up on the positive vs. negative truth dichotomy, and the whole idea of it is already passé.

Personally, when I make a statement in these forums, be it “positive” or “negative”, I want the very best and most compelling arguments brought to bear on it in the most clear and direct manner possible. I’m not looking to be uplifted, respected, valued, and appreciated. I’m looking to be challenged. Be civil. But more importantly be strong, direct, and clear.

When you allow me to believe silly things without challenging me, you aren’t being respectful, you are being patronizing.

[_Mary]

Agreed!

Heck...I'm not trying to be patronising by saying that. I just agree with pretty much everything you just wrote.

I too, enjoy having my thinking challenged.

[Guest]

I think that one needs to understand that when one is an apologist constantly defending a faith, eventually, the brain grows tired and the mind ceases to function properly. This is why I can understand Juliann and Pahoran for having bad days or weeks. The mind is becoming fried.

I am also tired and my mind is not what it used to be. An apologist needs a break as does a defender of the lds faith. To be a critic is much easier. A critic throws something out there and says: Take that, you horsecrab! And an apologist needs to reply.

It is not long before an apologist's brain becomes mush or a sponge filled with dirty liquid.

And so, it can be difficult for an apologist to be a constant source of 'thinking generation'.

[_gramps]

I think that one needs to understand that when one is an apologist constantly defending a faith, eventually, the brain grows tired and the mind ceases to function properly. This is why I can understand Juliann and Pahoran for having bad days or weeks. The mind is becoming fried.

I am also tired and my mind is not what it used to be. An apologist needs a break as does a defender of the lds faith. To be a critic is much easier. A critic throws something out there and says: Take that, you horsecrab! And an apologist needs to reply.

It is not long before an apologist's brain becomes mush or a sponge filled with dirty liquid.

What a virtual minefield for possible signature lines. Get some sleep, why me.

[_why me]

I think that one needs to understand that when one is an apologist constantly defending a faith, eventually, the brain grows tired and the mind ceases to function properly. This is why I can understand Juliann and Pahoran for having bad days or weeks. The mind is becoming fried.

I am also tired and my mind is not what it used to be. An apologist needs a break as does a defender of the lds faith. To be a critic is much easier. A critic throws something out there and says: Take that, you horsecrab! And an apologist needs to reply.

It is not long before an apologist's brain becomes mush or a sponge filled with dirty liquid.

What a virtual minefield for possible signature lines. Get some sleep, why me.

But I am writing the truth. Put yourself in an apologist's shoes as someone who is constantly defending the faith over and over again and think about the energy being used. It is enormous. After a while the brain grows dim and needs to be recharged. It is also just a little depressing to be constantly defending what one believes. It is not an easy position to be in.

This is why the brain needs to be recharged. How to do it is the problem. And then get ready for the next round where the same counter agruments are made over and over again.

[_gramps]

I think that one needs to understand that when one is an apologist constantly defending a faith, eventually, the brain grows tired and the mind ceases to function properly. This is why I can understand Juliann and Pahoran for having bad days or weeks. The mind is becoming fried.

I am also tired and my mind is not what it used to be. An apologist needs a break as does a defender of the lds faith. To be a critic is much easier. A critic throws something out there and says: Take that, you horsecrab! And an apologist needs to reply.

It is not long before an apologist's brain becomes mush or a sponge filled with dirty liquid.

What a virtual minefield for possible signature lines. Get some sleep, why me.

But I am writing the truth. Put yourself in an apologist's shoes as someone who is constantly defending the faith over and over again and think about the energy being used. It is enormous. After a while the brain grows dim and needs to be recharged. It is also just a little depressing to be constantly defending what one believes. It is not an easy position to be in.

This is why the brain needs to be recharged. How to do it is the problem. And then get ready for the next round where the same counter agruments are made over and over again.

Remember, I was a strong believer for some time. Thing is, I've never felt beliefs in any religion are "defensible" or "defendable." Personally, they all require some kind of faith when you get to the crux of it. Some faiths are a little more reasonable than others, but not defensible.

I consider Mormonism to be one of the far more unreasonable ones. I can see how it can get tiring and one's mind would get fried trying to defend such an unreasonable foundation. But, to each his own.

One

does

choose to defend or not to defend. The apologists could be spending more time with their families or whatever. But, they choose not to. They must like the game, so it is hard to feel sorry for them, really.

Get some sleep, why me. Refresh the brain cells.

[_Runtu]

I think that one needs to understand that when one is an apologist constantly defending a faith, eventually, the brain grows tired and the mind ceases to function properly. This is why I can understand Juliann and Pahoran for having bad days or weeks. The mind is becoming fried.

I am also tired and my mind is not what it used to be. An apologist needs a break as does a defender of the lds faith. To be a critic is much easier. A critic throws something out there and says: Take that, you horsecrab! And an apologist needs to reply.

It is not long before an apologist's brain becomes mush or a sponge filled with dirty liquid.

And so, it can be difficult for an apologist to be a constant source of 'thinking generation'.

I can assure you that Pahoran's behavior has not changed in the 12 years I've known him. If he has bad days because he's tired, he must have been tired for a very long time. I don't think Juliann is anywhere in the same league as Pah.

But I know what you mean. I've had good days and bad days, and times when I needed to just walk away.

[_Mary]

Why me, your post made me chuckle. I really do think you under-estimate the apologists, particularly the more vocal ones.

They can surely give as good as they get!!!

[_Analytics]

I think that one needs to understand that when one is an apologist constantly defending a faith, eventually, the brain grows tired and the mind ceases to function properly. This is why I can understand Juliann and Pahoran for having bad days or weeks. The mind is becoming fried.

I am also tired and my mind is not what it used to be. An apologist needs a break as does a defender of the lds faith. To be a critic is much easier. A critic throws something out there and says: Take that, you horsecrab! And an apologist needs to reply.

It is not long before an apologist's brain becomes mush or a sponge filled with dirty liquid.

What a virtual minefield for possible signature lines. Get some sleep, why me.

But I am writing the truth. Put yourself in an apologist's shoes as someone who is constantly defending the faith over and over again and think about the energy being used. It is enormous. After a while the brain grows dim and needs to be recharged. It is also just a little depressing to be constantly defending what one believes. It is not an easy position to be in.

This is why the brain needs to be recharged. How to do it is the problem. And then get ready for the next round where the same counter agruments are made over and over again.

Your post elicited the feeling I got in gym class when I was assigned to a crappy team, and was stuck trying to compete when I was clearly on the losing side. Our opponents always had more fun than we did.

The good news is that this isn’t a middle school gym class. You can walk away and do something more inspiring.

[_why me]

Actually I kind of like it. But I did want to mention that it is not easy to defend a faith month after month. It is sort of like playing chess by the black pieces over and over again. It can be rough. But I think that this can be true with catholic apologists too. Or for that matter, any apologetics used by posters. It is easier to attack. I would have a wonderful critic life.