charity wrote:JAK wrote:What would constitute a killer blow to the Book of Mormon for you? Can you think of any particular way that might come about?
I think she has answered your question, Jersey Girl. There is nothing. She thinks (if not states), I believe, I believe, I believe?
Wrong. I know, I know, I know.
JAK wrote: Blind faith or belief is blind. No rational considerations are relevant. No evidence is persuasive. An Islamic fundamentalist ready to die in a suicide attack on others cannot be persuaded that his suicide and the killing of innocent people is wrong, in vain, or without justification.
Your attempt to make LDS comparable to Islamic fundamentalists is sick and shows that you can't argue on a civil basis.
JAK wrote:While I would be skeptical that charity would participate in anything like that, charity appears to be equally irrational and no evidence, no rational consideration, nothing could be a “killer blow” as you state.
JAK
And when you can't win an argument in civil debate, try to destroy your opponent personally. You stepped in it.[/quote]
------------------------------
Charity, you can bully the language, however, to know and knowledge carries consensus of objective observation with every tool of observing which can be garnered.
You don’t know as you state. You believe what you have been well indoctrinated to believe. Religious mythology has, historically, used doctrine over documentation to perpetuate its views and positions.
Religion, is by nature, irrational. Fact is irrelevant to those who hold with a religious doctrine or dogma. In that, religions have a common denominator.
You appear utterly to fail to appreciate that fact. Having watched your posts here, you consistently set forward religious dogma and doctrine as if you were stating fact. You are not stating fact. And your beliefs do not constitute knowledge as the term knowledge is used in the general language.
Charity stated:
“Your attempt to make LDS comparable to Islamic fundamentalists is sick and shows that you can't argue on a civil basis.”
Your attempt to shift the topic is no refutation. There was nothing uncivil in the analysis I presented. Your comments only establish the validity of my observations.
There was no argument in my comment to Jersey Girl. It was an assessment of your mentality with regard to Jersey Girl’s question.
Thus far, you demonstrate the accuracy of my analysis.
Religious indoctrination is an interesting academic study. Had you been raised from cradle up as a Buddhist, the very high probability is that you would be Buddhist. But, you were not raised in a Buddhist family. Hence, you are not Buddhist.
Of course, it is correct to recognize that people do change their views and perspectives as they age, as time passes in their lives, and as they face a variety of life-altering situations.
That is, people can and sometimes do revise their thinking. In your case, it appears that you merely parrot how you have been successfully indoctrinated.
That’s not thinking. Your failure to directly respond Jersey Girl is demonstrative of that. (Perhaps you have and I have not see that particular post.)
Perhaps some are bent upon personal destruction. That was not my intent nor the focus of my comment. Rather, I addressed directly what appears to be your position with regard to Jersey Girl’s question.
You confirmed my analysis by repetition of “Wrong. I know, I know, I know.
The point which I made with regard to Islamic fundamentalists was also not refuted by any analysis of yours. That point was that commitment to religious dogma produces irrational (unreasoned) conclusions. People act or conduct themselves as if their belief system were without question, correct.
Hence, we get from you the above quote in which your only defense of religious myth is that you “know” as opposed to you believe.
Must as Muslims would say of their religious myths that the “know,” you say of your religious myth that you know.
That you are unable to appreciate the parallel is evidence of the effectiveness of indoctrination on you.
I’m not sure if you recognize that there are a wide variety of Mormon views.
For example, see the article here.
---------------------
It says in part:
There are two organizations of which I know to which this question might refer.
First, is the organization that used to be called “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or RLDS. After Joseph Smith was murdered, the church split into a number of different factions. The biggest faction was ultimately led by Brigham Young, was driven out of what, at the time, constituted the United States, and eventually settled into what is now Salt Lake City. Another organization consisted of those who believed that the leadership of the church was meant to be hereditary — to pass from father to son. Joseph Smith's oldest son was about three years old at the time, so this group laid low, and waited until Joseph Smith III was old enough to lead them. This group was the RLDS. They recently changed their name to “The Community of Christ” and have generally abandoned most of the teachings and practices that distinguished any of the LDS sects from generic Protestantism.
--------------------
And so, charity, you might keep in mind that even others even within the Mormon community, disagree with one another.
And certainly in the wide expanse of the well-fractured Christianity with its more than 1,000 groups, the claims for religious mythological truth are most abundant.
Your own point of view is one of many. Virtually all religious mythologies make some claim to know that for which there is contradictory evidence. Thus, they don’t “know” as they claim, but rather they believe some particular religious myth.
Now there is nothing here that is uncivil, charity. It’s all analysis. Your attempt to shift the issue is irrelevant to the analysis.
I don’t really expect you to address any of this. But, I would be quite open to quotation in context for any comment which I made. (A problem on this forum is finding a response someone made without extensive search.)
JAK