Three Powerful Books

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
The battle lines have been drawn, haven’t they? And we are all enlisted, on one side or the other, aren’t we?

Religion never has been about peaceful co-existence and love has it been MG....... And you say atheism is the enemy of war-mongering religion :rolleyes: Religion causes war with its supposedly superior paradigm. I no longer buy the brainwash that through religion there can be peace. You are living proof that you are agreeable to the war. Your shame shall follow you forever you dope.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

MG,

Have you tried the newest flavors of Snapple iced tea??

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: The battle lines have been drawn, haven’t they? And we are all enlisted, on one side or the other, aren’t we?

Philo: Religion never has been about peaceful co-existence and love...

MG: I beg to differ.

Philo: And you say atheism is the enemy of war-mongering religion...

MG: No I didn’t. Atheism is the enemy of the true followers of Christ.

Philo: Religion [has at times contributed to ] war with its supposedly superior paradigm.

MG: Fixed it for you.

Philo: I no longer buy the brainwash that through religion there can be peace.

MG: Then you are sadly mistaken.

Philo: You are living proof that you are agreeable to the war.

MG: The war between godless orthodoxy and freedom that comes through obedience to the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, yes.

Philo: Your shame shall follow you forever you dope.

MG: Keep chugging your ale Shirts.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

At the end of the day it is a matter of who is right and who is wrong, isn’t it? What worries me about the fact that more and more people such as yourself are running about is that over the long haul you and your kind could become a majority. If this were to take place, life as we have known it and the freedoms that we enjoy would be in jeopardy. Here me out...or for a better voice than mine...listen to this full speech given by Jeffrey Holland a few years ago at Chapman University in California. The meaty part of the address begins a bit after the eight minute mark and continues to the end.

In the here and now and in individual situations, lives based upon secularism may not be injurious to society as a whole. But that day may very well come if some worrisome trends continue. And that, my friend, is what concerns me when I communicate with those such as yourself. The agnostic/atheist crowd does not hold up well for the overall health, progress, and development of a free and open society.

If this doesn’t start around the eight minute mark you’ll have to rewind/back it up...

https://youtu.be/Ol9lzCG7E7k

Nothing against you personally and your right to non-belief in God (one that has laws and expectations for humanity), but everything to do with your kind becoming the norm rather than what still is an anomaly/minority.

The long term ramifications of being wrong are catastrophic.

Regards,
MG

Every once in a while MG lets the mask slip, and we get a peek at what motivates him. It's not pretty. All that superficial nuance is powered by plain old black and white, tribal thinking. He's enlisted himself as a foot soldier in a made up existential war. He has to have an enemy, because his God says so, and so he makes one up -- his fellow humans. Yeah, more people like Honor is an existential threat. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think at one time or another we each find ourselves standing up for something. That is, of course, unless you’re a relativist and find that there really isn’t any solid ground to stand on. Then everything is up for grabs.

Believe me, when it comes to one thing or another I’m nuanced. But not everything. And yes, there is an existential war. It’s happening right before our eyes. If you can’t see it, you’ve been suckered.

Yeah, I do believe secular humanism to be an existential threat. It has been for quite a few years now. If Honor considers himself to be a secular humanist, then he is part of that tribe. And I would expect so are you. So you and others of your kind are a threat to the long term cohesive fabric and stability of our society.

I guess we’re all subject to one form of tribal thinking or another, aren’t we?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

From the OP


It seems that as we bring this thread to a close we learned something about MG's motives for participating here if we learned anything.

Free exchange of ideas.

Religion [has] the "freedom" to assert itself onto others through infringing laws and discrimination that are in conflict with a pluralistic, democratic society.

Religious institutions have the right to assert themselves into the legal process within a pluralistic society. Secularists have the right to do the same thing. With the cancel culture and the woke movement we can see what happens when one side tries to literally shut down the other. It isn’t the religious institutions that are behind cancel culture and the woke movement. The far left which in my estimation is composed mainly of secularists and those that are irreligious in the institutional sense, would just as well shut down the voices of religious institutions when it comes to right to life, traditional marriage, etc. The woke culture and the cancel culture movement has no desire to end up in a place of pluralism in our society. It’s their way or the highway. My guess is that you are more or less in favor of what these folks are doing.

Anyway, it took a while to get here but it wasn't where I thought we'd end up.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that we ended up at this place. There will always be a divide between those that are fighting against God and those that fight for God. It’s an age old battle. Repackaged in some respects, but the same battle.

It does explain why MG never goes into depth in the subjects he raises, though. It's because he isn't actually reading books to engage their content. He doesn't grapple with new idea to understand how they may or may not affect his understanding of the world. He isn't brining ideas to the forum at all. He's just here trying to catfish lurkers into avoiding doing the thinking themselves as well.

As I said, I am a layperson when it comes to scientific explorations. Science and scientific endeavors have always been of interest to me, but I am not a specialist in any scientific area. That will obviously limit the amount that I can contribute when it gets down to the nitty-gritty. I realize that. I’ve admitted that. I would guess that I’m not alone coming from that vantage point or background. On the contrary, I’ve brought ideas into the forum. I hadn’t seen anyone discussing information theory before I brought it in. Other examples could be given. That’s the most recent.

I grapple with new ideas the best that I can with the time and ability that I have. The fact is, I look at faith and reason as being compatible at the outset. That’s where we do differ and will continue to differ. As far as lurkers go, I would encourage them to search, ponder, and pray. Don’t leave any stone unturned. But keep a balance. I think it is unwise to make a conclusive decision in regards to God when there is so much to learn and discover. Those that have come down on the side of secular humanism and either agnosticism and atheism have put themselves into a box of their own making. Remaining open to a creator God really has no downside unless that belief leads to do things that either harm oneself or others. Secular humanists are those that have no relationship to a God who has prescribed laws to live by and have become gods unto themselves. They make up their own rules and their own morality. Those laws and morality may or may not be conducive to a healthy, pluralistic society in the long run. They would like you to think so though. The founders of our nation suggested that this republic would only continue to exist with a people who believe in a God given set of laws and rights. There is movement to move away from that ideal set up and initiated by the original constitutionalists.

That is a danger to society. I have come to that conclusion exclusively through thinking for myself, as hard as that may be for you to accept. My guess is, that you know that I and others like me do think for ourselves. We are not dupes. Unlike the liberal far left and those that fall in line behind Hitchens, and Co.

I think this helps illustrate something I believe in when it comes to discussing with believers: Taking it serious enough to force them to be serious rather than just combative exposes it. And once expose it inevitable reveals itself to be another form of institutional church angrily protesting that their eternal importance they claim is so easily dismissed by most people because it's a lie. It was a lie in 1830. It's a lie today.

Wow. What a dogmatic and arrogant position to take. I am concerned that you, like Lemmie, have underlying issues or other concerns that may affect your religious belief. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other folks here that have either had familial issues or other life issues that have turned them against God and they try and defend that disconnection and/or underlying anger through intellectual endeavors do push Him aside. Textbook definition of implicit bias.

Go be a granddad to your grandkids, MG, and try not to screw them up too much with your old "the world is going to hell in a hand basket because gays can marry and beer is sold at Smith's."

You folks love to set up caricatures don’t you? If you were around to hear our conversations, you would see that they are nothing like what you are trying to portray. Silly secularist.

I'm sure they will be all right...

They are all right. They are also being raised in families that believe in God and in obeying His commandments. They are well balanced, fun loving, and smart kids.

...because there is a world of information out there they will encounter and figure things out for themselves.

Of that I have no doubt. What I find interesting, however, is that you and your kind appear to think that there’s only one answer out there that is ‘true’. And that is the rejection and replacement of religion with secular humanism. Pluralism at its best, huh?

Why would you even take a matter of fact position to say that my grandkids can only go one direction once they figure things out? You ARE in a box of your own making, aren’t you? You and your kind do want to take over societal norms and practices, don’t you?

You're on the wrong side of this, MG. Historically, scientifically AND especially morally.

The battle lines have been drawn, haven’t they? And we are all enlisted, on one side or the other, aren’t we?

Regards,
MG

Yeah, I think we’re about there...

Regards,MG

[_Dr Moore]

It would be super helpful, assuming this so called battle is “real” in the mystical-beyond-the-veil sense, if the LDS leadership would find a way to be ahead on a black and white principle of social justice, instead of allowing the existentially threatening secular humanists to lead the way. You know, to clarify which side is more right than the other. Assuming Jesus abhors things like bigotry and racism for instance.

I’m sure this statement falls under the “boring” list of topics that you find uninteresting, MG.

However, as you’ve acknowledged, honest people can look at the facts and honestly come out on the “not true” side of the ledger with regard to LDS doctrines. Therefore, who are you to judge which side is right and which is wrong?

Should you not instead be advocating for no more than civility and acceptance? Why the dogmatic reversion to “existential war” if the honest truth seeker can honestly go either way on Mormonism and its truth claims? It isn’t much of a war if a large enough cohort honest seekers can’t point to which side is more right than the other.

Perhaps you’ve framed the “war” incorrectly. Instead of LDS vs non, the war is just one human v another human. How sad.

[_mentalgymnast]

Jesus abhors things like bigotry and racism...

I think that’s a safe bet. So does the church. So do I. So does every single person that I know to the best of my knowledge. Your words are simply a placard in order to stir up controversy and division.

However, as you’ve acknowledged, honest people can look at the facts and honestly come out on the “not true” side of the ledger with regard to LDS doctrines. Therefore, who are you to judge which side is right and which is wrong?

Because in my judgment, the folks that fall into the secular humanist camp are wrong. And if you’re a secular humanist I think the chances of you being wrong in regards to the truth claims of the LDS church are greater than my chances of being wrong because you already have an implicit bias. But I can understand how, from your point of view as a secular humanist you would believe that the church can’t be true. No God, no true church. Your view has a certain sense of logic to it within the parameters of your restricted thanking. That shouldn’t inhibit me from having a strong opinion that you’re wrong even though you think you’re right.

...the war is just one human v another human. How sad.

No, the war is between competing/opposing ideologies and worldviews. People happen to be on both sides of the tracks with strong views in regards to these ideologies. We are all human though, that’s true!

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

Have you tried the newest flavors of Snapple iced tea??

When PP shows up isn’t that the signal that things are about to wrap up? I’m ready to wrap it up if everyone else is. Then Lemmie, the Dr. dude and Jersey can go back to their little side conversation that they were having some fun with.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

Believe me, when it comes to one thing or another I’m nuanced.

Believe me, you are as unbelievable as it is possible to be as a "nuanced" person. Seriously, mg, you are the only one who defines yourself with the characteristics you use. Your reputation is well established.

I think the chances of you being wrong in regards to the truth claims of the LDS church are greater than my chances of being wrong because you already have an implicit bias.

This is just laughable at this point. Nice trolling, mg.

[_Dr Moore]

You keep using the word bias, but I think you mean to say that I followed the data to a different conclusion than you have. That’s not bias, it’s differentiation.

Also, the church absolutely has stood for bigotry and racism in the past. It still does. Would you like to reconsider your statement there?