Happy Birthday President Nelson!

[sock puppet]

...We are opposites, you and I. One, a believer in a loving God who created this world in which we live and breathe.

Another, a disbeliever who for all intents and purposes seems to have no real belief or confidence in anything as far as we can discern. Except possibly himself...

You, MG 2.0, believe in that for which there is no evidence. You are so full of yourself, you conclude you must have been created. So there must be a creator, who not only created you but "this world in which we live and breathe." Does that make you feel special? That you must have been a valiant spirit in the pre-existence? A supreme egotist. Well, think of it this way, you are the result of the fastest swimmer of about a million sperms that were racing to get to the egg.

I Have Questions seems to believe in that for which there is evidence, not that for which there is nothing more than fanciful thoughts. If so, he sees numerous species inhabiting and sharing this planet, likely realizing that the energy from which the earth and solar system masses were made has always existed and was not created ex nihilo. Like others IHQ is one of the human species, that over time evolved from more basic lifeforms. Adapting and changing along the way to where humans now are. It's enough to be a member of the human family, not needing to feel superior or that an imagined Sky Daddy has singled out for special supervision and protection.

[Gadianton]

Essentially that you feel free to mock those that believe in God and will find any and all ways to either diminish or ridicule the faith of those that exercise faith in a Supreme Being.

That's an interesting interpretation, MG. Where did I mock? I pointed out that there is no God and there is no judgment. That's not mocking, that's giving you my opinion. Is it mocking when a missionary declares to a nonbeliever that God lives? Let me get this straight: if you proclaim your beliefs, is that also mocking? Why the double standard? Why is a non-believer not allowed to tell you that there is no judgment?

That you would do that, pointed towards me, is unwarranted and a cheap trick at elevating your own worldview.

Explaining the fact of the matter is unwarranted and a cheap trick?

Calling me a troll in coming here and expressing my beliefs further diminishes your worldview rather than mine, in my opinion.

I'm not sure I called you a troll. Can you cite me? I said you were trolling, and you were. I think your presence here is fundamentally sincere (I mean sincerity in that you fundamentally believe in what you say and that's usually why you say it, not as in "polite" as some might take it). Even those who are fundamentally sincere in their posting can be guilty of trolling. You troll quite regularly when you get frustrated and feel like you're not winning. A fundamental troll would be Sledge or Hound. Fake personas and backstories and coming in at a certain angle to provoke certain kinds of responses. Now, those who are fundamentally trolls at times can break character and have sincere conversations. Hound has made a few good points here and there. You are not a troll in my opinion, but you do troll quite a bit. Your "here's to 102" comments were more trolling, by the way.

You, of all people, not having a belief in God, ought to simply brush off and even ignore another person's level of belief rather than trying to find every nook and cranny in order to enter in and diminish faith and belief in a wholesale manner.

Another weird perspective. Why shouldn't I put that in the mirror: "You of all people, having belief in God, ought to simply brush off and ignore another person's level of disbelief...." You seem to greatly privilege your own perspective. I think you are a fanatic. I don't mean to be insulting, what I mean, is that you can't see the bare possibility that you might be wrong about something important. So you seem to think that good manners and conduct would have believers basically saying whatever they want about whatever they want, because they are obviously right, but non-believers should step back and remain quiet, as they are obviously wrong; and everyone should instinctively know their place as you see their place. In general this is quite a troubled expectation to have of people. It's far worse though that you have this expectation on a free-speech Internet forum where those who do believe are quite aware that non-believers may be straightforward with them.

[Marcus]

Great post Gad. And this is simply profound:

...You seem to greatly privilege your own perspective. I think you are a fanatic. I don't mean to be insulting, what I mean, is that you can't see the bare possibility that you might be wrong about something important. So you seem to think that good manners and conduct would have believers basically saying whatever they want about whatever they want, because they are obviously right, but non-believers should step back and remain quiet, as they are obviously wrong; and everyone should instinctively know their place as you see their place. In general this is quite a troubled expectation to have of people.

This really captures the behavior that I see coming from some LDS church leaders and members. It is profoundly immature, in my opinion, because it seems you could replace fanatic with 'toddler having a meltdown' and your description of the interaction would perfectly describe trying to reason a three year old through a tantrum. Toddlers grow out of it, but there seems to be an element of LDS culture that has maintained and even nurtured that viewpoint in some.

It's ironic that mg states people here try to tear down Mormons and their beliefs, because I simply do not have these conversations (such as those I participate in on this forum) with certain of my LDS family, ever, because they insist that, just like the toddlerfanatic that Gad describes, their viewpoint should dictate how others should treat them. It is exhausting to even be around them, and under those circumstances I certainly have no reason to try to tell them my opinion, especially when, like mg, they take massive offense that others would dare to have a different opinion. This behavior, face to face, has real world impacts so I simply don't engage.

Mg is wrong that people are here to tear him down, in reality he is the one who comes here and tries to force his fanaticism on others. It's no surprise people don't tolerate that.

[MG 2.0]

Essentially that you feel free to mock those that believe in God and will find any and all ways to either diminish or ridicule the faith of those that exercise faith in a Supreme Being.

Is it mocking when a missionary declares to a nonbeliever that God lives? Let me get this straight: if you proclaim your beliefs, is that also mocking? Why the double standard? Why is a non-believer not allowed to tell you that there is no judgment?

No to the first question. No to the second. No double standard. I have no problem with you simply saying there is no judgement. No problem whatsoever.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Here's the opinion that MG says 'mocked' him:

It's also worth pointing out that God is not going to hold anybody accountable for anything because there is no such thing as God. So everything Everybody Wang Chung is saying he's getting away with Scott free. It's also worth pointing out the "brethren" are bureaucrats. They are no more holy or deserving of respect than the board members of a beer company. They deserve to be made fun of just as many self-important people in power deserve to be made fun of.

So, Gad asked:

That says it all, right there.

In your view, what does it say?

MG's response is completely over the top.

Essentially that you feel free to mock those that believe in God and will find any and all ways to either diminish or ridicule the faith of those that exercise faith in a Supreme Being...

So, MG took great offense that Gadianton had an opinion about a group of men, and defines Gad's words as mocking him, personally, and directly ridiculing him and his faith beliefs. It's not, and this is why I think Gad's description is perfection:

...You seem to greatly privilege your own perspective. I think you are a fanatic. I don't mean to be insulting, what I mean, is that

you can't see the bare possibility that you might be wrong about something important. So you seem to think that good manners and conduct would have believers basically saying whatever they want about whatever they want, because they are obviously right, but non-believers should step back and remain quiet, as they are obviously wrong; and everyone should instinctively know their place as you see their place.

In general this is quite a troubled expectation to have of people.

Yes it is.

[Marcus]

He once suggested that members with doubts about their faith were spiritually autistic. He stands by that description for people to this day. He does so simply to troll.

I do believe that there are various degrees of 'receptivity' to those things that we refer to as spiritual. I've compared it to various wavelengths of light found on a spectrum, yes.

Regards,
MG

No, you did not compare it to "various wavelengths of light found on a spectrum," you called it "spiritual autism." From the last time you tried to obfuscate:

The neurodiversity comparison has problems too, as Gad pointed out, but he conveniently ignored that. And he still prefers the more offensive term [spiritual autism], he says. That says it all right there. He learned nothing.

...I would encourage those that haven’t read the earlier discussion to do so and determine for themselves whether or not I’ve been abusive or insulting in any way....

The location of this part of the conversation begins here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159192&start=80

and then moves along to the next page and thereafter. I believe context is always important, especially when dealing with those that take things out of context and invent their own...

Your 'context' culminates here, as Riverdale repeats their plea to you for at least the fourth time:

Please stop. This is getting worse. Almost to the point of revulsion. You absolutely can not equate disabled people integrating with mainstream society with a spiritual realm. You have no evidence that these adaptive strategies are parallel to a spiritual foggy lens. It is offensive and horrific to all the people who have disabled kids.

I agree, please stop.

[Limnor]

you conclude you must have been created. So there must be a creator, who not only created you but "this world in which we live and breathe." Does that make you feel special?

From my viewpoint, it’s even more special than that. My understanding is LDS theology teaches that people were not created but formed, and before that we existed eternally as “intelligences.” Historic Christianity holds to creation ex nihilo, from nothing.

Limiting a God to forming (or terraforming with a hat tip to Gadianton) instead of truly creating lowers this deity while elevating humans.

Of course the shortfall of all of this is that the foundational scripture for this belief, the Book of Abraham, undermines the source of this knowledge. As shulem (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, It doesn’t hold up against the evidence.

The translation is incorrect, therefore it doesn’t match the Book of Mormon’s standard of a seer, revelator, prophet, and translator.

Therefore, there really is nothing to feel special about with regard to this teaching.

[MG 2.0]

I do believe that there are various degrees of 'receptivity' to those things that we refer to as spiritual. I've compared it to various wavelengths of light found on a spectrum, yes.

Regards,
MG

No, you did not compare it to "various wavelengths of light found on a spectrum," you called it "spiritual autism." From the last time you tried to obfuscate:

Your 'context' culminates here, as Riverdale repeats their plea to you for at least the fourth time:

I agree, please stop.

I think I did compare spirituality and spiritual maturity to light along a spectrum.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Here's the opinion that MG says 'mocked' him:

It's also worth pointing out that God is not going to hold anybody accountable for anything because there is no such thing as God. So everything Everybody Wang Chung is saying he's getting away with Scott free. It's also worth pointing out the "brethren" are bureaucrats. They are no more holy or deserving of respect than the board members of a beer company. They deserve to be made fun of just as many self-important people in power deserve to be made fun of.

So, Gad asked:

In your view, what does it say?

MG's response is completely over the top.

Essentially that you feel free to mock those that believe in God and will find any and all ways to either diminish or ridicule the faith of those that exercise faith in a Supreme Being...

So, MG took great offense that Gadianton had an opinion about a group of men, and defines Gad's words as mocking him, personally, and directly ridiculing him and his faith beliefs. It's not, and this is why I think Gad's description is perfection:

...You seem to greatly privilege your own perspective. I think you are a fanatic. I don't mean to be insulting, what I mean, is that

you can't see the bare possibility that you might be wrong about something important. So you seem to think that good manners and conduct would have believers basically saying whatever they want about whatever they want, because they are obviously right, but non-believers should step back and remain quiet, as they are obviously wrong; and everyone should instinctively know their place as you see their place.

In general this is quite a troubled expectation to have of people.

Yes it is.

A fanatic? Me? Don’t think so.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...I think I did compare spirituality and spiritual maturity to light along a spectrum...

No, that's not correct. Here's what the Mental Gymnast said...

...My point is the spiritual autism is the inability of any one individual to have a full connection with spiritual practice of a community.

And here's a typical response:

Please stop. This is getting worse. Almost to the point of revulsion. You absolutely can not equate disabled people integrating with mainstream society with a spiritual realm. You have no evidence that these adaptive strategies are parallel to a spiritual foggy lens. It is offensive and horrific to all the people who have disabled kids.