Late Anger

[_PrickKicker]

Yep, I only got back into bitching about the Morg. this month. Cannot escape it 3rd generation, to many relatives in it.
stopped wearing G's 2/3 years ago. Was told by a EXMO don't even try debating or using logical reasoning as TBMs ( Totally Brainwashed Mormons. ) are beyond reason.

Example:
Mom, I don't believe the Bible, it's all Myth and Magic. I don't believe in the Holy Ghost, I believe it's human emotion and I don't believe in God, he was just evil in the Old Testament and or Jesus is just a mixture of jewish and roman mythology.

Mormon mom reply: Well, you need to read your scriptures, pray and ask God for an answer to your questions and then he'll let you know by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Gee, Mom... Thanks for listening.

[_Franktalk]

Explain to me how you weren't 'trying to elevate yourself by lowering others.'

If you criticize others in this fashion, calling them 'losers', and telling them to 'get a spine.' Don't turn around and expect 'respect' and 'civility' for your beliefs. If you want to play hardball, by all means let's play hardball.

I was not selling a thing. I was telling people to embrace their own decision. I compared my beliefs with my actions and their beliefs with their actions. I was not selling Mormonism. Then someone tried to sell me a bridge. That action lowered them self. I was pointing out the reality of that attempt.

Now let us compare selling of a bridge with the selling of Mormonism. This is where I think some have made a link. I think that some feel that the effort to bring them into a belief in Mormonism is like someone selling a bridge that they don't own. At some point they look at everything said to them as a lie. And the emotions rise and anger sets in. We all make mistakes in our life and we all believe in things only later to change our mind. If someone came to being a Mormon because of what was said by men instead of their own inward search then I can see how a trust was developed in the men. Then later that trust is shattered by a change in beliefs. I think that when someone gives you a personal witness of their beliefs it can be a powerful message. So powerful that you accept their message and don't develop your own. I believe this happens way to often. Now we can argue over how the church may want to reduce this from happening. I think that would be a valid argument. For me it was different. I have had many people witness to me from many beliefs. So I knew that a personal witness only applies to that person. The variation in witnesses across beliefs must have been known by all of the people who became Mormons. The big exception might be when someone grew up from a child in the church. I can see this as problematic or a blessing. When someone grows up in one environment and believes then is exposed to a world filled with many witnesses then what was used to form faith can be shattered. I am not sure what I can do about this. The world is an unfair place. Most schools today are anti-god. This is also unfair but what form of god should schools teach? I think none but they go way beyond avoiding god and actually become critical of thought outside of the physical senses. This to me is just as programming as growing up Mormon. But none of this is hidden. Anyone with eyes can see what is going on. At some point don't we have to take some amount of responsibility for our own choices?

For me I believed Christ when He stated what the two most important commandments were. Love your God and love each other. What this means is everything else is not as important. So all of this talk about all of these rules should be placed in proper priority. I know of people who place their appearance at church as equal to loving God. I have to ask that if that person were to be stripped of their clothes would they love less? I think that some would blame God for them being stripped. But this is the weakness of the flesh. We all have it to some degree. My comments were intended to open the eyes of those who are angry. Just so they may see their anger in some kind of context. You see I trust God. If someone has a crisis of faith then God will find a way for that person to learn some new truth in their life away from that old faith. I am not bothered by this. Now let me turn this around a bit. What if the church did have a museum of artifacts of all of the things mentioned in the books? What if angels walked around in the church and talked to you? What if God wrote on your heart and it over powered your own free will? Would you like this? In my mind what we have is much better.

[_Franktalk]

Accepting the scientific method as the best (and only reliable) means of gaining objective and useful knowledge does not involve faith.

I know this is how you feel but it is not true. You have faith that what you see today is pretty much what happened in the past. You were not in the distant past and you have no measurements from the distant past. Yet you believe.

When you use instruments to measure the strength of a magnetic field you believe in a force field as defined by equations formed by many observations. But what if those forces were due to ripples in the ZPE. Then all of your equations would still work and the forces would still be there but your underlying assumption would be wrong. Most scientist don't believe in ripples in the ZPE. Again a belief.

I see you as a man standing on a soft muddy patch telling me that you are on solid ground. You see me the same way. Both of us believe this to be true.

[_Themis]

Yeah, I did read that.

Frank seems to say one thing and then contradict it sometimes in the same post. I am happy for him to be happy in his beliefs, but they tend to be blind in the sense that he concludes a number of objective truths based on some very subjective experiences, and even admits evidence has little to no impact on what he will have faith in. I think we can have faith based on evidence. Some argue if you knew God existed you could not have faith because you would know, but the this faith is only based on God existing, instead of the type of faith I have in my parents which is far more valuable. My faith in my parents is not about whether they exist, but on how I can trust and rely on them in many areas of life. This faith is based very much on evidence.

[Guest]

Accepting the scientific method as the best (and only reliable) means of gaining objective and useful knowledge does not involve faith.

I know this is how you feel but it is not true. You have faith that what you see today is pretty much what happened in the past. You were not in the distant past and you have no measurements from the distant past. Yet you believe.

When you use instruments to measure the strength of a magnetic field you believe in a force field as defined by equations formed by many observations. But what if those forces were due to ripples in the ZPE. Then all of your equations would still work and the forces would still be there but your underlying assumption would be wrong. Most scientist don't believe in ripples in the ZPE. Again a belief.

I see you as a man standing on a soft muddy patch telling me that you are on solid ground. You see me the same way. Both of us believe this to be true.

Not quite the same, Franktalk.

My "patch" is supported by objective evidence. From my patch, it is possible to objectively test new ideas, make accurate predictions as to outcomes of physical processes, etc.

Your "patch" as you yourself have said, is supported by, well, nothing but your faith (i.e. unfounded belief, subjective emotions and imagination). Folks on your patch still believe in, and try to live their lives in accordance with, a set of illogical and internally inconsistent fictions, lies and myths contained in "scriptures" made up by a 19th century con man or passed down by bronze age humans, most of whom were not enlightened enough to keep their food from being contaminated with their feces.

[_Kishkumen]

Frank seems to say one thing and then contradict it sometimes in the same post. I am happy for him to be happy in his beliefs, but they tend to be blind in the sense that he concludes a number of objective truths based on some very subjective experiences, and even admits evidence has little to no impact on what he will have faith in. I think we can have faith based on evidence. Some argue if you knew God existed you could not have faith because you would know, but the this faith is only based on God existing, instead of the type of faith I have in my parents which is far more valuable. My faith in my parents is not about whether they exist, but on how I can trust and rely on them in many areas of life. This faith is based very much on evidence.

So Frank is to be faulted ad nauseam because he does not follow your naturalistic recipe for arriving at "truth." These are huge issues you guys are grappling with, and all I see, time and again, is people restating their position without any progress or enlightenment on either side.

My apologies for being weary of it, but I am. Frank has faith for reasons that are compelling to him. You don't find them reasonable. OK.

Frank has, I am supposing, felt the Spirit. He accepts that as evidence of the existence of God that works for him. You dismiss that evidence as too subjective. OK.

Sigh.

So, maybe if we tell Franktalk that the Spirit is not evidence, and that he is thinking stupidly when he relies on such evidence as indicating the existence of God, he will stop believing.

I doubt it. Very much.

[_jo1952]

So Frank is to be faulted ad nauseam because he does not follow your naturalistic recipe for arriving at "truth." These are huge issues you guys are grappling with, and all I see, time and again, is people restating their position without any progress or enlightenment on either side.

My apologies for being weary of it, but I am. Frank has faith for reasons that are compelling to him. You don't find them reasonable. OK.

Frank has, I am supposing, felt the Spirit. He accepts that as evidence of the existence of God that works for him. You dismiss that evidence as too subjective. OK.

Sigh.

So, maybe if we tell Franktalk that the Spirit is not evidence, and that he is thinking stupidly when he relies on such evidence as indicating the existence of God, he will stop believing.

I doubt it. Very much.

Hello Kishkumen,

It is good to be getting to know you. If I were to say I see great wisdom in your words (which I do), some of the posters would see evidence which needed to be attacked and questioned until they were satisfied they had won the debate. .....sigh (indeed!!)

Blessings,

jo

[_Franktalk]

So, maybe if we tell Franktalk that the Spirit is not evidence, and that he is thinking stupidly when he relies on such evidence as indicating the existence of God, he will stop believing.

I doubt it. Very much.

I think it has to do with perception. When some people look at the world they just see the world and they investigate the world. They have set a boundary based on their desire to know the world. When I look at the world I see the world and I investigate it but I keep asking why? I have faith that my question has an answer. Some would say the answer is simple. Everything just is. There is no plan and we are an accident of the stuff that just is. I refuse that answer. To answer the question requires purpose. Purpose requires in my head a designer. Using this faith in purpose I was led into a spiritual life. Only after I had faith did I receive a witness in spirit.

I am no different than DrW. We both seek. I just set my boundaries differently and I ask questions that science does not deal with. I used to have the same boundaries that DrW has. But I felt I was missing something for years until one day I reset my boundaries. I still love science. I just won't let it adjust my faith. The way I see it a painting by Van Gogh proves Van Gogh. DrW may say the painting only proves a painting.

[Guest]

So Frank is to be faulted ad nauseam because he does not follow your naturalistic recipe for arriving at "truth." These are huge issues you guys are grappling with, and all I see, time and again, is people restating their position without any progress or enlightenment on either side.

It's not like I haven't tried to get them to be more open in answering some of the problems I see. It's not like I am not familiar with these issues as a believer.

My apologies for being weary of it, but I am. Frank has faith for reasons that are compelling to him. You don't find them reasonable. OK.

I am aware that he has reasons for believing them, but I still like to try and get them to really articulate why. I am happy with him believing what ever he wants to, but I see no reason to express my opinion, especially with problems I see being ignored all the time. He posts here so I suspect he wants to discuss them to some extent.

Frank has, I am supposing, felt the Spirit. He accepts that as evidence of the existence of God that works for him. You dismiss that evidence as too subjective. OK.

Well it is subjective and being used to claim knowledge of objective facts. Some see this as a problem, and see evidence form other groups who use the same method to come up with very different objective truth claims. OK It's not like anyone is forcing anyone to participate.

So, maybe if we tell Franktalk that the Spirit is not evidence, and that he is thinking stupidly when he relies on such evidence as indicating the existence of God, he will stop believing.

I can't remember having ever indicated it was not evidence, nor that he is stupid. I don't think family members are stupid for doing the same thing, nor even myself for most of my life.

I doubt it. Very much.

So do I, but I don't just post for him. For all of us it is much more then thinking we can change someones mind about some belief.

[_Themis]

I think it has to do with perception. When some people look at the world they just see the world and they investigate the world. They have set a boundary based on their desire to know the world. When I look at the world I see the world and I investigate it but I keep asking why? I have faith that my question has an answer. Some would say the answer is simple. Everything just is. There is no plan and we are an accident of the stuff that just is. I refuse that answer. To answer the question requires purpose. Purpose requires in my head a designer. Using this faith in purpose I was led into a spiritual life. Only after I had faith did I receive a witness in spirit.

I am no different than DrW. We both seek. I just set my boundaries differently and I ask questions that science does not deal with. I used to have the same boundaries that DrW has. But I felt I was missing something for years until one day I reset my boundaries. I still love science. I just won't let it adjust my faith. The way I see it a painting by Van Gogh proves Van Gogh. DrW may say the painting only proves a painting.

I just like to ask questions on how you actually know some of these things. Like I said, I was believer for most of my life. In many ways it just helps to understand how others may think and perceive the world differently then I. I know many in the church and out who do think and experience the world differently.

I could be wrong about eh church's truth claims. I am sure I probably am on many things.