Buffalo wrote:My comparisons are, of course, to the Jesus god raised up by the Christian movement
Yeah, but the Christology of orthodox Christianity as expressed in the ecumenical councils still won't work. Christ had two natures, and is considered co-eternal with the Father and is ousía, same substance, as the Father.
Stak, I think most atheists on this board were once Mormon. Those that were once Mormon spent years and even decades studying their own theology as well as that of other Christian sects and possibly ventured into other world wide theological movements and beliefs. All those years they spent in the garden of christology, so to speak, they explored quite a bit and became familiar with just about every type of plant therein. Eventually after leaving the garden they realized what they thought was an Eden of incomparable beauty was simply a patch of weeds with a few flowers springing up here and there. They realize they spent decades talking themselves into how beautiful it all was and now after leaving and seeing what the reality of it all is they realize its not all that special.
You talk about there being a problem with theists or Christians for example being able to identify with what the hostile atheists describe as the Christian God. That's not a problem in the eyes of these atheists. They could care less about tip toeing around and trying to get Christians to identify with them. They have seen the garden for what it is and in the end its just a pretend garden that doesn't deserve to be cared for and preserved. I could go on and elaborate how many probably see the Christian theology as being filled with poisonous plants occasionally consumed by the ignorant and masses, many of these "hostile" atheists once being poisoned themselves. It's a garden the Christians claim is an Eden full of beauty, but in reality its all pretty talk for a patch of weeds. Those considered hostile just don't feel there is any value in pretending along with Christians.
I haven't seen much in the way of God - Santa Claus comparisons on this board. Such comparisons can be childish and have taken the status of a symbol of childish comparisons in apologetic circles, but at the same time, they can be quite on point. Santa Claus does function as a perfectly good reductio in plenty of arguments you hear believers make. They usually involve faith or arguments from ignorance.
I also think the arguments the very best of theology is churning out are pretty terrible, and that should be taken as a practical sign there is no sound reason or collection of reasons to believe in God that anyone is aware of. I advocate treating those arguments seriously. Or, more accurately, I advocate the existence of people willing to treat those arguments seriously. But that is a function of the depth of influence that god-belief has on society. It is not because I think the design argument, for example, is strong enough that scholars should be spending their time worrying about it on the merit. Mind you, I am a person who as a serviceable grasp of sophisticated theology. I'm not saying this out of ignorance of what is being offered.
On a conversational level, if you want to engage someone's ideas, you have to actually engage them. If you're just hanging around to mock and deride, then don't pretend you doing anything other than that. I'm all for there being a time and place for serious engagement and poking fun, but don't fool yourself about what you are doing and why.
reuigen verrater wrote:Stak, I think most atheists on this board were once Mormon. Those that were once Mormon spent years and even decades studying their own theology as well as that of other Christian sects and possibly ventured into other world wide theological movements and beliefs.
Am I being trolled here?
If not, trying asking Aristotle Smith or MsJack how well they think Ex-Mormons understand Christianity.
If not, trying asking Aristotle Smith or MsJack how well they think Ex-Mormons understand Christianity.
Whether or not some understand a particular sect/denomination or conclusions line up with MsJack and Aristotle Smith has nothing to do with what I said. Many Mormons have studied Christianity in depth. It's irrelevant what conclusions they draw. The point is that they don't see value in pretending bulls**t is not bulls**t. Whether they are correct or not is another issue entirely.
Morley wrote:I think the problem can be laid at the door of LDS theology, and the lack of depth, therein. Joseph Smith was a religious genius, but other than a few dabblers like Nibley and Roberts, not much has developed in Mormon religious studies in the past 150 years. All energy seems to be devoted to defensively guarding Fortress Joseph Smith.
Because of this, apostates tend to believe that all religions and belief systems are intellectual wastelands. Many don’t realize the profundity of thought that has evolved in Judaism, Islam, or Catholicism (for example) during their advancement over the past couple of millennia.
I think Morley sums up quite well the general default apostate position.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
reuigen verrater wrote:Whether or not some understand a particular sect/denomination or conclusions line up with MsJack and Aristotle Smith has nothing to do with what I said. Many Mormons have studied Christianity in depth.
Most Christians, much less Ex-Mormons, haven't studied Christianity in depth. The reason I mention Jack and Smith is because not only have they made an actual study of the issue, they come into contact with Ex-Mormons here all the time.
Buffalo wrote:My comparisons are, of course, to the Jesus god raised up by the Christian movement
Yeah, but the Christology of orthodox Christianity as expressed in the ecumenical councils still won't work. Christ had two natures, and is considered co-eternal with the Father and is ousía, same substance, as the Father.
Father Christmas, likewise, has multiple natures - the historical figure, the Catholic Saint, the pseudo-secular distributor of commodities.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Morley wrote:I think the problem can be laid at the door of LDS theology, and the lack of depth, therein. Joseph Smith was a religious genius, but other than a few dabblers like Nibley and Roberts, not much has developed in Mormon religious studies in the past 150 years. All energy seems to be devoted to defensively guarding Fortress Joseph Smith.
Because of this, apostates tend to believe that all religions and belief systems are intellectual wastelands. Many don’t realize the profundity of thought that has evolved in Judaism, Islam, or Catholicism (for example) during their advancement over the past couple of millennia.
I think Morley sums up quite well the general default apostate position.
I got profundity of Mormon thought. I am published (on the web). I got credentials (from God). The and real problem is arrogance. Mormons believe that IF they do not already know it then it must be wrong. A few honester folks recoil from this hypocrisy and get chased off into forbidden paths.
I could have personally saw to a GREAT REFORMATION if the LDS had not been so proud to cast my gifts aside as a thing of no worth. Now they reap the whirlwind of confusion of face against mean disillusion.
A word about hostility here on my wonderful, wonderful, board home. I got lots and lots of really really good good friends here that allow me to sit on my corner of the table and drool my dribble all over myself and they laugh at me once in while. It's okay 'cause I know what its like to have nobody care.