I quit the Church!!!

[_EAllusion]

I thought the constant swearing and focus on sex was a bit odd from what seemed previously to be a devout Mormon. Believing in Mormonism is ridiculous, so good for you on that point. And while I understand a certain sense of freedom from a puritan culture can lead to indulgences, it's not really that big of a deal. You don't need to go out drinking while swearing like a sailor just 'cause you can. What PP is about comes across as really, really immature.

[_asbestosman]

Unless you believe, as most Christians do, that He is Jehovah of the Old Testament.

Most Christians do not believe Jehovah = Jesus. In fact, Mormonism is the only religion that I know of that teaches this idea. What other Christians do you have in mind that believe it?

Or is this the way you're interpreting the teaching of the trinity?

It was an oversimplification. I don't completely understand the Trinity, and neither do most Christians. Most Christians believe that Jesus is the one and only God and that so is Jehovah, that Jehovah is the Father, and that the Father is not the same being as the Son (Jesus) while yet being the same indivisible and only God.

[_Dr. Shades]

Okay, Paul, now we all know that you've quit the church.

What you haven't told us is why you left the church.

Just what was it that finally convinced you that it wasn't true?

[_JohnStuartMill]

And if you believe that, then you believe in contradictory Gods, or at least a God who is not the same "yesterday, today, and forever". I'm honestly perplexed that you'd think that I'd find your little rejoinder here convincing.

All I meant to say is that I don't think the New Testament (specifically the 4 gospels) is as different from the Old Testament as you seem to think. Even aside from the Jehovah connection, Jesus wasn't just a fun-loving hippie. Even in the New Testament He used violence, harsh condemnation of enemies, and mentioned that He would set families against each other.

CFR that Jesus used violence. He only allowed his disciples to carry weapons when it became clear that they might have to be used in self-defense.

Look, the difference between the "stone gays to death" Old Testament Jehovah and the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" New Testament Jesus is considerable. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Furthermore I have mentioned that I am suspicious of some of the accounts in the Old Testament as we have it today.

But you're only suspicious of them insofar as they pose problems for the consistency of your theology. You don't seem to care about the strength of independent scholarship about the provenance of sections of the Old Testament. You want to fix the facts around the pre-established conclusion that your childhood religion is correct. There's nothing respectable about that. Period.

But it's generally not the stuff that Paul quotes that I have misgivings about (since I don't remember all that many quotes about rapes etc.).

Sure, but it's more the general idea of Pauline theology that makes it sit awkwardly with Jesus' supposed teachings. Jesus seemed to eschew hard and fast rules of action, and instead preached consideration for other beings, and keeping one's intentions pure. Paul, on the other hand, was very into Old Testament lists of actions that were purportedly offensive to God, no matter the intent, or the love for God's children they showed. Jesus and Paul had very different meta-ethical stances, it seems, and all the weird Pauline stuff about avoiding homosexuality and not letting women speak in Church stems from this difference.

But then, you and I are different, in that I follow people based on the wisdom of their teachings, while you choose some other heuristic, such as their power, or whether you were indoctrinated to follow a certain person when you were a child.

Uhh, good for you or something. If you didn't keep reminding us of how superior you are, people around here might forget. I think you mischaracterize me, but don't let that interfere with the more important matter of patting yourself on the back.

I'm not trying to pat myself on the back here; I'm trying to get you to see the poverty of your position by contrasting it with another. You can quit being meta-condescending and tell us how you think I've mischaracterized you at any time.

[_asbestosman]

CFR that Jesus used violence.

John 2:14-15

You can quit being meta-condescending and tell us how you think I've mischaracterized you at any time.

I follow God based on my experience on the consequences of following Him. It's not indoctrination and it's not a mere cowering in fear of His power. It is because I trust God and respect and revere His guidance.

Edit: The condescending remarks about your ego also came in part because of something you said to bcspace before about how you're much smarter than he is. Uhhh, yeah. I don't think I'm smarter than him, and I probably have some decent brag-worthy credits behind me. Maybe not as many as you do, but I'm not a complete moron.

[_JohnStuartMill]

CFR that Jesus used violence.

John 2:14-15

It's not clear whether the verse is saying that Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple, or just the animals.

You can quit being meta-condescending and tell us how you think I've mischaracterized you at any time.

I follow God based on my experience on the consequences of following Him. It's not indoctrination and it's not a mere cowering in fear of His power. It is because I trust God and respect and revere His guidance.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a lot of hindsight bias going on here. If you get an emotion that tells you to do something that ends up being beneficial to you, you attribute that to the promptings of the Holy ghost. If you follow another emotion to your ruin, then that must have been your own selfish feelings. How do you tell which is which beforehand?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Edit: The condescending remarks about your ego also came in part because of something you said to bcspace before about how you're much smarter than he is. Uhhh, yeah. I don't think I'm smarter than him, and I probably have some decent brag-worthy credits behind me. Maybe not as many as you do, but I'm not a complete moron.

I can understand why you'd think that about me, but you should also be aware that before I trained my sights on bcspace, he made fun of me for being undereducated. If you look through all my posts here, you'll notice that I never make fun of posters just because of their education level. You'll also notice that if I ever do point out someone's poor education, it's because they, ironically, first did the same to me.

Also, I don't think you're an idiot -- far from it. In fact, that's why I try so hard with you: I think that, perhaps unlike Gazelam and bcspace, you ought to know better.

[_why me]

I'm sorry to say that until you get off your habit-fattened ass and realise there's no "middle way" in Mormonism, you are doomed to self-delusion - as I was.

So let me repeat, why me - there is no "middle way" in Mormonism. Have you missed all the debates?

Everyone has to find their own path and way in life Ray. What works for some does not work for others. Just because something did not work for you does not mean it won't work for someone else.

The most judgemental of inactive Mormons come from former Mormons. It is quite amazing. I remember from my brief time on the postmormon site, just how judgemental of me were the postmormons. But on the other hand, I took it as jealously because hey were active and made the sacrifice and deemed me unworthy for being inactive for many years.

The most black and white people are the exmos. I see much more understanding from the Mormons. They are a rather tolerant bunch.

[_asbestosman]

Also, I don't think you're an idiot -- far from it. In fact, that's why I try so hard with you: I think that, perhaps unlike Gazelam and bcspace, you ought to know better.

*sigh*
You may mean well, but I don't like it when I'm compared to others in a way that tacitly puts them down. Furthermore I disagree--I don't find myself smarter than them. In math / computer engineering (my talents / passions) yes, but I see them tell good jokes and think of things I hadn't thought of (and probably couldn't have).

I also think Daniel Peterson is much more capable (academically) than I am and I believe his testimony is stronger than mine. I'm not living on his borrowed light. I'm just saying that I don't think one should suspect that academic ability or history should somehow imply that one is more likely to agree with you because it makes him more logical or academic or whatever you think the key difference is (I don't know what you are thinking, but it appears to be related to academic ability).

[_mentalgymnast]

What PP is about comes across as really, really immature.

Yea! It's about time someone called this spade a spade.

Regards,
MG