wenglund wrote: Okay. But, can you respect that reasonable people may rationally interpret and weight [sic] the evidence differently than you, and thus find good cause to accept the so-called extraordinary claims about how to live one's life?
No.
(Depending, of course, on what you mean by "respect").
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Can you respect that others might find good (non-arrogant) reasons for believing that your belief system is arrogant?
Not really, when I feel snubbed I know it's only because I really want to be on top socially. I would argue you can't see arrogance unless you actually are arrogant.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I think it might be important to separate the arrogant teachings of the church from the attitude of the people of the church.
The church does indeed have some arrogant teachings. Some being that LDS members were more valiant in the pre-existence, God bestowing more blessings upon members because they are LDS, all other churches being the "whores of the Earth", pre-ordination, a man with the priesthood has more power in the tip of his pinky finger than all the nations combined (not sure this is doctrine, but I did hear it used a couple of times), etc.
Can you respect that others might find good (non-arrogant) reasons for believing that your belief system is arrogant?
Not really, when I feel snubbed I know it's only because I really want to be on top socially. I would argue you can't see arrogance unless you actually are arrogant.
That must mean that Wade, Cogs, and Dr. Peterson have joined KA in the arrogant club. ;-)
I guess I don't see your point. I can recognize rudeness without being rude; spot dishonesty without being dishonest; and perceive arrogance without being arrogant.
Canucklehead wrote:All that I ever personally claimed to be arrogant about the LDS church (meaning the organisation, not the entirety of members) is the need to tell people how to run their lives based on supposedly superior insights into the nature of the universe. Then again, that pretty much goes for all religions, now doesn't it?
It also applies generally to parents, school teachers, doctors, politicians, advocacy groups of all strips, or just about anyone confidently or dogmatically exressing their opinion (like you). However, I don't know that I would call it "arrogance". To me, "arrogance" has more to with artifical inflation of self-importance, rather than lovingly offering guidance and direction for people's lives.
I also find the exclusionary way in which temple marriages are performed to be arrogant (not that I ever personally been excluded from such a ceremony as an adult).
Do you also think it "arrogant" for universities to have admittance requirement for undergraduate and graduate programs? Do you think it "arrogant" for the medical profession and other highly skilled occupations to have licensure requirements?
wenglund wrote: Okay. But, can you respect that reasonable people may rationally interpret and weight the evidence differently than you, and thus find good cause to accept the so-called extraordinary claims about how to live one's life?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I can accept that people DO interpret the evidence differently than I do, but I vehemently disagree with that interpretation.
I have to admit that I can't help but thinking that people who know all of evidence against the church, yet still believe in it, are being irrational. Of course, since they usually justify their belief in the church based on an appeal to a fundamentally emotional experience, they probably wouldn't have any problem with recognising that it's an irrational belief, right?
wenglund wrote:Do you also think it "arrogant" for universities to have admittance requirement for undergraduate and graduate programs? Do you think it "arrogant" for the medical profession and other highly skilled occupations to have licensure requirements?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wow, Wade. I've never heard that one before. Generally, one need only be alive and (apparently) heterosexual to get married. I've never heard that marriage requires graduate-level training. (Although in some cases that might have helped.)
For the record, I don't find the exclusion of loved ones to be "arrogant" so much as it is heartbreaking for those people who cannot see their son, daughter, sister, or brother married because of an arbitrary rule set by men.
Besides, I may not get to go to class with my son (who is studying electrical engineering), but no one will bar me from attending his graduation.
Last edited by cacheman on Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Nehor wrote:Not really, when I feel snubbed I know it's only because I really want to be on top socially. I would argue you can't see arrogance unless you actually are arrogant.
So nobody in the history of the world has ever been arrogant?
wenglund wrote:Do you also think it "arrogant" for universities to have admittance requirement for undergraduate and graduate programs? Do you think it "arrogant" for the medical profession and other highly skilled occupations to have licensure requirements?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Apples to apples, Wade. What if the university denied you entrance to your son's graduation ceremony because you personally didn't qualify for that school?
The Nehor wrote:Not really, when I feel snubbed I know it's only because I really want to be on top socially. I would argue you can't see arrogance unless you actually are arrogant.
So nobody in the history of the world has ever been arrogant?
This discussion is getting wonky.
No, it's just that recognizing arrogance makes you arrogant. Or something like that.