There's not a damn Mormon on here worth engaging with...

Post by **_harmony** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:11 am

Coggins7 wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Coggins7

If you can show that you are capable of having a rational (respectful of the constraints of empiricism and logic) conversation about Mormonism by proposing a test or two whereby, in your view, Mormonism could be reliably falsified, then I'll give you a whirl. If you can't, then you've made it obvious upfront that you're not willing to have, or capable of having, a "rational" conversation on this topic at all, and so it would be totally pointless to spend my time trying.

Ball's in your court:

If Mormonism were a fraud, how would you know?

In other words, here's the chess board. Tal has all his pieces, but now he's going to make some changes. First he's going to put some of my squares off limits. My pieces won't be able to use those. Next, I'm not going to be able to use some of my pieces at all. I can't use my Rooks, and my queen can only move three squares at a time. There, now we're ready to play.

Does anyone else here see the obvious transparency of this? Tal wants a debate in which he has total control of its terms and boundaries. You know what, I might bite, because I don't think Tal is really as deeply attuned to the rigors of philosophical thought as he thinks he is.

On the other hand, here's the problem with his rules: he wishes to treat the Gospel and its claims as a scientific, empirical problem that can be solved by recourse to the tools of science and philosophical argument. The bare fact that the Gospel is not, per se, amenable to that kind of analysis (albeit some of its historical claims and cosmological claims are, in principle amenable to this kind of approach), delimits the degree to which a defender of the Church can make his case.

I might give it a try just to see if Tal can hang it there for more than to or three posts for a change.

Someone take my temperature. I think I'm running a fever. Can Armageddon be far away?

I agree with Loran. Tal wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Sorry, Tal. We may not all be equal to your exalted intellectual elevation, but even I recognize a stacked deck when I see one.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:11 am

I strive (not always so successful at this endeavor) to live my life with love, compassion, and charity. I find it sad, Coggins, that you don't deem those traits as important as demonizing those that disagree with you. How can you love someone or feel compassion for someone when you hurl insults at them? When you attempt to shame them for not adopting the lifestyle you deem appropriate? How does that work? This is a serious inquiry -- I should probably start a new thread.

No Moniker, Coke's post was a thinly veiled provocation and little more, and demonstrates, as we see so often here, that if this person is even a Mormon, her experience in the Church has been shallow and peripheral. I try to live my life in precisely this manner, but the post I responded to makes an implied claim that living the Gospel (keeping the commandments) is somehow set off against...living the Gospel. By your fruits ye shall know them. I can be full of love, compassion, and charity, and spend my entire life in the Himalayas chanting "Om". It is in the living of the Gospel that that which is within us-our character-is manifest.

Defying the commandments of God, while claiming to be swollen with love and compassion is, in any case, pure sophistry. Our tithing is for the building of the Kingdom and the care of the poor among us. The law of chastity, good grief, is intended to, among other things, avoid the negative spiritual, social, and cultural consequences of sexual immorality. It is relational in nature.

But something else is being ignored here. Living the commandments is about purification; it is about the cultivation, development, expansion, refinement, and perfection of character, and it is only from the spiritual and moral development of character that love, compassion, and charity can come. The idea that living the Gospel personally by making and keeping covenants, and disciplining our lives in the area of appetites and desires, is in some way set off against the inner attitudes of Christian charity is preposterous, and, if nothing else, demonstrates an abject misunderstanding of LDS doctrine.

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:15 am

Coggins, part of your problem is that you really don't pay attention to what other people are saying on this board. I think you're constantly preoccupied formulating your next "anti-leftie rant" and don't take the time to register other people's words.

For instance - anyone who has read anything by moniker would know, very quickly, that she's never been a Mormon in the first place, and she certainly hasn't pretended otherwise.

Post by **_harmony** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:16 am

guy sajer wrote:or whom no one can prove he/she has seen or heard

Guy, with all due respect... why do you think anyone has to prove what you're asking them to prove? It's their business if they've seen or heard what they presume to be God, not yours. How does one person's private experience in any way intrude on your life?

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:17 am

Hey Beastie

Did you get a load of Coggins's falsifiability tests?

He's kind of helping me with my case here...

Post by **_Coggins7** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:17 am

The trick is in being able to recognize that it's just as possible for your own worldview to be wrong, as it is for everybody else's to be, and to be ready, and willing, to seek for yourself meaningful tests that will help you recognize whether it is or not.

But...I've done this, and I've done it many times, and the confirmations have been clear and unequivocal, in most cases.

Your wish had been granted even as you asked it.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:20 am

Someone take my temperature. I think I'm running a fever. Can Armageddon be far away?

I agree with Loran. Tal wants to have his cake and eat it too.

I knew...I just knew there was a God...

Post by **_Coggins7** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:22 am

Coggins, part of your problem is that you really don't pay attention to what other people are saying on this board. I think you're constantly preoccupied formulating your next "anti-leftie rant" and don't take the time to register other people's words.

For instance - anyone who has read anything by moniker would know, very quickly, that she's never been a Mormon in the first place, and she certainly hasn't pretended otherwise.

MY comments were not about Moniker--dork--but about coca cola, who authored the original post to which I was responding. Moniker came to her defense, and I was speaking to coca cola's lack of depth regarding Mormonism, not Moniker. I think its you who'd better start paying attention.

Dolt.

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:23 am

Hey Beastie

Did you get a load of Coggins's falsifiability tests?

He's kind of helping me with my case here...

I can only take coggins in small doses. I haven't read that one carefully yet, not sure I have the stomach for it tonight.

But I do have to concur that coggins really isn't worth engaging. As other posters have pointed out, however, there are some believers here (who possess varying degrees of belief) that are worth engaging.

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:25 am

MY comments were not about Moniker--dork--but about coca cola, who authored the original post to which I was responding. Moniker came to her defense, and I was speaking to coca cola's lack of depth regarding Mormonism, not Moniker. I think its you who'd better start paying attention.

You're right in this case. My mistake.