Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[IHAQ]

No, this is not a proselytizing assignment for me.

Marcus, I certainly don't remember giving an almost identical response to two entirely different comments. Can you tell me what the two comments were? Maybe I can figure it out from that.

You literally got my words from the exact post where i quoted (WITH LINKS) both of your comments. you left out that part of my post, which of course you had to do in order to ask your questions.

Your comment that "you don't remember" and "can you tell me what the two comments were," when they were in the very post you just quoted, is facile in the extreme.

It’s the exact same modus operandi as MG2.0

[IHAQ]

I find some aspects of KevinSim's postings quite strange. This is at least the third time in just a couple of pages where he either has totally ignored what is being said to him, or has misquoted or incompletely quoted someone to the extent that what he did quote completely distorts the quotee's point.

That and his apparent insistence that what he has decided to believe must represent reality in spite of lack of even marginally convincing evidence have made me conclude that, although he is somewhat more polite and pleasant in tone than MG, he is a virtual clone of MG.

I think that, as I now do with MG, I should not bother to try to engage with him. It's a waste of time and mental energy.

I agree.

[Res Ipsa]

Humanity has relied upon God doesn't mean we'll always need God. Sufficient would be the construction of a replacement, not necessarily a deity. I'm satisfied with mine.

For me, God is that being that knows how to preserve forever some good things. Without such a God, the human race itself will not last forever. We owe it to future generations of humans to make sure the race persists, and that's why I say that we need God.

So, if the human race itself figures out how to persist forever, does that make the human race God?

[drumdude]

For me, God is that being that knows how to preserve forever some good things. Without such a God, the human race itself will not last forever. We owe it to future generations of humans to make sure the race persists, and that's why I say that we need God.

So, if the human race itself figures out how to persist forever, does that make the human race God?

Is this some kind of deep Mormon doctrine I was unaware of?

[Meadowchik]

Meadowchik, do you think the human race is going to last forever? If not, then there will be a last generation of that race. What is your conscientious obligation to that last generation of humans?

No I don't think it will. As far as we know all known life in the universe will end at some point, However I am not married to that position... perhaps conditions as we understand them will change.
But my obligation doesn't change with either case. And my obligation to the last generation is similar to that for this generation. To try to be good and help goodness spread. And that boils down to treating others and myself as people. I value the fact that another person is just as much a person as I am and I try to act accordingly.
I don't find the God concept as actionable apart from what I've said above, although ftr I don't need the God concept to believe in my obligation.
As an aside, when it comes down to it, I have to live with myself for the rest of my existence and I want to like me.

[Meadowchik]

So, if the human race itself figures out how to persist forever, does that make the human race God?

Is this some kind of deep Mormon doctrine I was unaware of?

Probably not because apparently it has to know it's doing it.

No pun intended.

[Res Ipsa]

So, if the human race itself figures out how to persist forever, does that make the human race God?

Is this some kind of deep Mormon doctrine I was unaware of?

Not that I’m aware of. I’m just trying to understand what he posted.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You literally got my words from the exact post where i quoted (WITH LINKS) both of your comments. you left out that part of my post, which of course you had to do in order to ask your questions.

Your comment that "you don't remember" and "can you tell me what the two comments were," when they were in the very post you just quoted, is facile in the extreme.

It’s the exact same modus operandi as MG2.0

“Their” posting history overlaps. edit: or rather, leap frogs

eta: from le reddit:

I think the internet has torn down the ability [for Mormons] to deceive, and it's so funny to see the church quietly remove something from the handbook or another publication, so they can just pretend it didn't happen. They don't know how to be honest.

Kevin/MG is just a product of their predominant culture and religious tradition, which is to lie but act like you’re not lying, and then act like a besmirched victim when they can’t keep their lying up.

- Doc

[KevinSim]

I am sorry to have to say that your omission of a significant part of my post suggests to me that you may not be entirely honest as a poster. Perhaps it is better just to say that you may be a little confused.

Sheesh! I leave out a couple of sentences that I didn't realize were important but that you, Chap, think were very important, and that merits you suggesting I might be a dishonest poster? Would you rather that I post everything the previous poster said, just so I can be sure to include everything that might be important? Including relevant quotes is, at least for me, an inexact science; I do the best I can do, and if I omit something someone thought I should say, I don't see how that makes me dishonest.
The universe, you seem to be saying, is nondeterministic at the quantum level but deterministic at the macroscopic level. Is that fair, Chap? I assert that life is nondeterministic at the macroscopic level. How did life, at that level, get so non-deterministic, against the backdrop of complete determinism of everything else at that level, if there was nobody else non-deterministic at that level?

[malkie]

I am sorry to have to say that your omission of a significant part of my post suggests to me that you may not be entirely honest as a poster. Perhaps it is better just to say that you may be a little confused.

Sheesh! I leave out a couple of sentences that I didn't realize were important but that you, Chap, think were very important, and that merits you suggesting I might be a dishonest poster? Would you rather that I post everything the previous poster said, just so I can be sure to include everything that might be important? Including relevant quotes is, at least for me, an inexact science; I do the best I can do, and if I omit something someone thought I should say, I don't see how that makes me dishonest.
The universe, you seem to be saying, is nondeterministic at the quantum level but deterministic at the macroscopic level. Is that fair, Chap? I assert that life is nondeterministic at the macroscopic level. How did life, at that level, get so non-deterministic, against the backdrop of complete determinism of everything else at that level, if there was nobody else non-deterministic at that level?

Isn't that strange!

Chap and I are completely different people. But in spite of that, I am also sorry to have to say that your omission of a significant part of my post suggests to me that you may not be entirely honest as a poster.

You quoted a two-sentence paragraph of mine, actually the only paragraph I wrote in that post. Except you omitted the first sentence, and thereby substantially altered the meaning of what I said. Are you saying (by analogy) that you chose one of the two sentences to quote because you thought that perhaps the other one wasn't important to me?

It's not just the occurrence - it's that a pattern seems to be emerging.