Jersey Girl wrote:You have taken the original remark out of context. . . 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.
I disagree. The analogy makes perfect sense in all cases.
But to make you happy, here's the context: Kerry was talking about religion.
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".
Just because he's miles away from a typical "Chapel Mormon" doesn't mean that his motto is a legitimate way to ascertain truth.
The Nehor wrote: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.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, The Nehor. I appreciate your taking this seriously. (In case you're wondering, NO, I am NOT being sarcastic.)
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?
I understand your point, but I don't think it applies to JustMe's
modus operandi. His motto doesn't imply that he's out there actively looking for evidence against his beliefs; it seems to suggest that he's ignoring evidence against his beliefs that has
already appeared.
Here's how it works if we use the analogy you provided: What if, even though a person trusts his/her spouse 100%, lots and lots of evidence mounts that he/she is unfaithful? Should the person not discount what he/she "knows" because of what he/she doesn't know, or should he/she investigate the mounting evidence (no pun intended) and draw whatever conclusion accounts for all the evidence?
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.
See the bolded portion: How is it possible to find him unfaithful if you follow JustMe's advice and not allow what you don't know to influence what you think you know?
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?
It depends. If she was a marriage counselor and you were about to pay her hundreds of dollars in marriage counseling, then yes, you would.
Wheat wrote:It is a myth, though an often repeated one, that people (especially Christians, of course) believed that the earth was flat during the post-Roman era and continuing until the age of discovery.
Thanks for the history lesson, but my analogy still holds. Is JustMe's motto a legitimate way to investigate the truth, Wheat, or isn't it?
I’ve noticed many other myths that are popular here, like the notions that Mormons believe in infallible prophets, . . .
Name me one thing that Gordon B. Hinckley or Thomas S. Monson was wrong about. See? Told you so.
. . . that orthodoxy consisted of a hemispheric view of Book of Mormon geography until just recently, . . .
Didn't it?
. . . and that LDS are obliged to obey their leaders unquestioningly.
Tell that to the guy who's about to be excommunicated for disagreeing with the Brethren about Proposition 8.
I have observed that apostates simply love to ridicule the silliness and anti-intellectualism of believing LDS.
You're absolutely right.
It’s probably their favorite pasttime.
You're right about that, too, at least in my case.
JustMe wrote:Interestingly, that is precisely the role of Satan in the ancient Hebraic thought....... he never creates or builds up. His only goal is to destroy and tear down.
Are you implying that critics of Mormonism are of the devil? If so, please come right out and say it.
Jersey Girl wrote:Here, I dug this up and will throw it in, in the hopes it will forward your discussion. I don't plan to stay on this thread since I don't think it will lead to any productive conclusions.
That's B.S., and you know it. You ain't goin' nowhere.
Jersey Girl wrote:Kerry says that he does have weak spots in his own testimony but he doesn't feel a need to patch them up.
Therein lies the problem, methinks. The cold fusion guys had weaks spots in their testimonies, and not feeling the need to patch them up led to a great deal of embarrassment later on.
He believes that certain things "ring true" with regards to his religious traditions.
Certain things "rang true" to the cold fusion advocates, but their failure to properly investigate the things that DIDN'T "ring true" was the cause of their downfall later on.
In those areas where he feels either uncertainty or unsureness, he relies on faith.
Therein lies the problem. Faith is a poor substitute when 51% or more of the evidence favors the opposite conclusion.
He accepts that there are some things that he will never know or can never know in this life time. He's a little agnostic in that regard. (So am I)
Right, but what about the things he
does know? Hearkening back to one of my prior analogies, JustMe may accept that he will never know and can never know in this life how a loving god can command a guy to sleep with teenage brides behind his wife's back, but that doesn't change the fact that he
does indeed know that Joseph smith slept with teenage brides behind his wife's back.
These are the things he doesn't know and they don't cancel out what he believes he does know to be true about God and his religious tradition.
But that's the whole point of this thread--
shouldn't they cancel out what he believes he does know to be true about God and his religious tradition?
He feels a responsibility (actually, I think he feels "called" to do it) to continue learning from the best sources he can find to increase his knowledge.
But shouldn't he put that knowledge to work by
synthesizing it rather than just allowing it to collect dust in his brain?
He values the process of learning and discovery. He feels a responsiblity to use and grow the intellect that he believes God gave him.
But what about the process of learning and discovery of those things which challenge his preconceptions?
I think that all things considered, Kerry "walks on faith" (this is an Ev term), acts on what he believes to be true about God and for what he doesn't know...he gives that to God.
But, per my opening post, will that lead a person
toward the truth, or will it lead a person
away from the truth?
GoodK made an insightful statement:
GoodK wrote:To imply that religious faith (especially Christianity) is somehow noble in the absence of certainty is not intelligent. It is not indicative of being well read, to say the very least.
JustMe and Jersey Girl: What's your opinion of that statement by GoodK?
". . . FARMS Review of Authors. . ." LOL, GoodK!!Some Shmo: Thank you for your comments and for bringing your previous analysis to our attention. I didn't respond to it 'cause I had nothing more to add. :-)
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley