DiscussMormonism.com

Jersey Girl has quasi-immortalized a statement by JustMe in her signature line. It goes like this:

"I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know." - JustMe 9-20-08

Now, is that particular motto of JustMe's legitimate? For example:

Back in Columbus's time people "knew" that the earth was flat. Some time later, Ferdinand Magellan (or, more accurately, part of his crew) circumnavigated the earth.

Now, people could say they "don't know" how Magellan sailed off in one direction and came back to his point of origin. But did they lose faith in what they did know--that the earth was flat--because of what they didn't know?

Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. They, uh, changed their paradigm to incorporate the new knowlege, even though they didn't know how to mesh it with their former knowledge.

So, is JustMe's motto--"I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know"--a legitimate way to arrive at truth? Or is it merely a cover story to avoid assimilating new things that he does know, but can't force into his old paradigm?

(For example, JustMe may not know how a just and loving god could command Joseph Smith to take teenage brides behind his wife's back, but he does indeed know that Joseph took them. Why not just incorporate the raw data and draw the obvious conclusions?)

.

Well, it's legitimate if you want to stay trapped within a magical paradigm. One in which angels appear and disappear, god mandates murder and rape, and underwear protects you from fire and bullets. That's fine if that's a personal choice, but it's immoral passing on that disability to children and worse, implementing it as public policy.

In some cases it works, in other cases it doesn't. So to answer your question: yes and no.

Dr. Shades wrote:Jersey Girl has quasi-immortalized a statement by JustMe in her signature line. It goes like this:

"I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know." - JustMe 9-20-08

Now, is that particular motto of JustMe's legitimate? For example:

Back in Columbus's time people "knew" that the earth was flat. Some time later, Ferdinand Magellan (or, more accurately, part of his crew) circumnavigated the earth.

Now, people could say they "don't know" how Magellan sailed off in one direction and came back to his point of origin. But did they lose faith in what they did know--that the earth was flat--because of what they didn't know?

Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. They, uh, changed their paradigm to incorporate the new knowlege, even though they didn't know how to mesh it with their former knowledge.

So, is JustMe's motto--"I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know"--a legitimate way to arrive at truth? Or is it merely a cover story to avoid assimilating new things that he does know, but can't force into his old paradigm?

(For example, JustMe may not know how a just and loving god could command Joseph Smith to take teenage brides behind his wife's back, but he does indeed know that Joseph took them. Why not just incorporate the raw data and draw the obvious conclusions?)

.

Shades, are you leering at my sig lines again? ;-) You have taken the original remark out of context. Further, I did offer my interpretation of those comments in exchanges with another poster. In order to make the analogies you offered valid, you needed to include matters of "faith" in relation to God. Without that, your analogies don't make sense with regards to the original context.

Your assertions would also make more sense if Kerry didn't have an entire website posted online that is dedicated to the revision of thinking. For example, he is miles away in his thinking from the typical "Chapel Mormon".

Jersey out.

Jersey Girl wrote:Your assertions would also make more sense if Kerry didn't have an entire website posted online that is dedicated to the revision of thinking. For example, he is miles away in his thinking from the typical "Chapel Mormon".

Jersey out.

Don't tell me JustMe is Kerry Shirts??!!


LMFAO!

GoodK wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Your assertions would also make more sense if Kerry didn't have an entire website posted online that is dedicated to the revision of thinking. For example, he is miles away in his thinking from the typical "Chapel Mormon".

Jersey out.

Don't tell me JustMe is Kerry Shirts??!!


LMFAO!

Please try to pay attention, GoodK.
:-)

Jersey Girl wrote:

GoodK wrote:

Don't tell me JustMe is Kerry Shirts??!!


LMFAO!

Please try to pay attention, GoodK.
:-)

Sorry, I haven't had the time. I have been really, really busy. : )

But my goodness, I'm nearly in tears over this.

Why in tears, GoodK? I don't get it.

You're applying the wrong paradigm to what he said.

To most of those who have faith and believe the question is not up in the air. We found God and now we trust him. If you give us a new scientific theory most of us will examine it critically. However, the relationship is different. Let's suppose you apply this logic in a friendship or a romantic relationship which is more like our relationship to God.

Would you suggest to a person that they should never trust their spouse in anything and should instead stay alert always for new evidence that they might be unfaithful or carefully examine every word your friend says and try to find out what they say about you at all times? This attitude leads you to becoming paranoid and drives off your spouse and/or friends. God asks us to trust him once we find him and if we find him unfaithful later we can leave but if you spend your entire life trying to find out if he is unfaithful you won't grow into what God wants you to become.

This is why we're warned against too much critic literature. Would you recommend that a man read the journal of his wife's ex that describes their bad breakup in which he blames everything on her?

Jersey Girl wrote:Why in tears, GoodK? I don't get it.

Well, I'm in tears because it is hilarious.

He is hilarious.

I swear, Mopologetics deserves a sitcom.

ETA:

Shades, you are correct. The quote in question is absurd.