Living the Consequences of Another?????s Religion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _Kishkumen »

DCP has written something recently that I quite like:

Critics often publicly wonder how any honest, intelligent person can believe in the Book of Mormon, the visitation of God and angels to Joseph Smith, or the divine potential of humankind. Yet, although their honesty and intelligence are frequently questioned by anti-Mormon crusaders, many such people do exist, some of them quite well-informed. On the other side, not a few Latter-day Saints vocally marvel that anybody who knows anything could be a Catholic, and cannot see how sane, intelligent people can possibly swallow doctrines like the Trinity. But the fact is indisputable: Many of the most brilliant thinkers in the history of Western civilization have been devout Roman Catholics, and, of these, many have written on precisely the issue of the Trinity.

In the interreligous discussions and, yes, arguments that, for various reasons, are very likely to arise as Mormonism becomes more and more of a public issue in the next few months and years, it would help if each side could grant the other to be, on the whole, sincere, honest, intelligent, and sane.


I agree. Human beings are complicated and the reasons for religious affiliation and belief are also complicated. Lampooning religious belief and affiliation can be an emotionally satisfying part of the process of leaving a religion, but in the long run it is arguably counterproductive and potentially deleterious.

But there is another side to this, I think. Something that cannot be ignored. When religionists seek to impose on others laws that follow from their unique beliefs they invite an inevitable blowback. Here in the US religious laws have retreated before principles of personal liberty. If your belief in the devil makes you fight the right of gays to marry, then you must accept that your exercise of political muscle to push the consequences of your beliefs on others will make you and your beliefs unpopular.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Finn the human
_Emeritus
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:50 am

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _Finn the human »

A few years ago while visiting family in Texas I attended a Stake Conference. The GA speaker (who’s name I don’t recall) lamented the fact that local Christians would get together and talk crap about all the weird Mormon beliefs. Later in his talk this GA referred to the trinity as a “stupid” belief, and that it was nonsensical. While traveling home I asked my believing family members if they noticed the hypocrisy in the GA’s talk. They of course, didn’t.

It seems like the Mormon church is often urging for more civil dialogue as Dr. Petersen is here, and I also appreciate that reminder. I’m also confident that many quotes could be found pointing our Dr. Petersens hypocrisy.
Mathematical!
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _Kishkumen »

Finn the human wrote:A few years ago while visiting family in Texas I attended a Stake Conference. The GA speaker (who’s name I don’t recall) lamented the fact that local Christians would get together and talk crap about all the weird Mormon beliefs. Later in his talk this GA referred to the trinity as a “stupid” belief, and that it was nonsensical. While traveling home I asked my believing family members if they noticed the hypocrisy in the GA’s talk. They of course, didn’t.

It seems like the Mormon church is often urging for more civil dialogue as Dr. Petersen is here, and I also appreciate that reminder. I’m also confident that many quotes could be found pointing our Dr. Petersens hypocrisy.


On SeN it is the atheist who receives the most abuse, usually at the hands on one of this year’s Sampson Avard recipients.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Stem
_Emeritus
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _Stem »

Kishkumen wrote:I agree. Human beings are complicated and the reasons for religious affiliation and belief are also complicated. Lampooning religious belief and affiliation can be an emotionally satisfying part of the process of leaving a religion, but in the long run it is arguably counterproductive and potentially deleterious.

But there is another side to this, I think. Something that cannot be ignored. When religionists seek to impose on others laws that follow from their unique beliefs they invite an inevitable blowback. Here in the US religious laws have retreated before principles of personal liberty. If your belief in the devil makes you fight the right of gays to marry, then you must accept that your exercise of political muscle to push the consequences of your beliefs on others will make you and your beliefs unpopular.


Some of the biggest mistakes I've made in life is to treat others as if they don't know, don't understand, haven't read enough or something like these. It's usually best to stop myself as such thoughts start to come in and accept that the other person has a useful life and perspective too. I can appreciate Dr Peterson's point to in that arguing under the assumption that the other is wholly and completely wrong never provides a win. Everyone goes away frustrated and divided.
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Critics often publicly wonder how any honest, intelligent person can believe in the Book of Mormon, the visitation of God and angels to Joseph Smith, or the divine potential of humankind.


Just a minor nitpick. Do many critics of the church make fun of mormons believing in the "divine potential of humankind"? That's a very generic idea common to many movements outside of mormonism. Looks like DCP used the rule of three to sneak in a strawman.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_kairos
_Emeritus
Posts: 1917
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _kairos »

So to be called a Christian, are there one or two or more absolutely rock solid tenets ,beliefs or doctrine that if applied to the organized religions that could be used to separate christians and non-christians? i am thinking "belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God " might be one such tenet!

just wonder'in

k
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _I have a question »

Is Peterson making the point that Catholicism is true?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _Philo Sofee »

I have a question wrote:Is Peterson making the point that Catholicism is true?


He would not do so were Jesus himself come to him personally in his own first vision and ask him to genuflect.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _Gadianton »

Kishkumen wrote: When religionists seek to impose on others laws that follow from their unique beliefs they invite an inevitable blowback.


Yep.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Living the Consequences of Another’s Religion

Post by _Gadianton »

it would help if each side could grant the other to be, on the whole, sincere, honest, intelligent, and sane.


Lemmie pointed this out from Mr. Midgley on another thread:

Mr. Midgley wrote:I actually very much agree that some information about a member of the Church, or anyone for that matter, who had rough spots, but there is any even moderately good reason to believe that they had repented, then it is not appropriate to drag up unseemly details if one is telling a general history of, for example, the Church in Utah County or the Church in Fiji or wherever.


Intellectual History has nothing to do with a person's personal repentance. If for some reason, an unseemly fact is relevant about a person for the sake of history, then it's relevant whether or not the person had "repented" of the matter or not. How ridiculous to think otherwise. The only reason to believe otherwise is if a person thinks intellectual history is synonymous with fighting for the crown. If this apologist of high rank is a good example of apologist thought, then I can't grant sincerity, honesty, or sanity. Maybe intelligence depending on how it's defined, as a hatchet job could be wicked yet clever.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Post Reply