Runtu wrote:This is a fundamental mistake I see over and over. There are religious truths that you must take on faith (God exists, Jesus died for our sins), and claims that religions make that can be tested (a Hebraic people migrated to the Americas in 600 BC and lived there for 1000 years). When we conflate the two, then facts don't matter in the least. If your religious truth involves 12-foot-high green-skinned Norwegians dwelling in 1940s Argentina, then you can take it on faith and no one can or should convince you otherwise.
Charity sweetie, let me illustrate your behavior runtu is speaking of in his post:
OK hun?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
beastie wrote:I think it has to do with the "investment paradigm". If an individual's psyche or sense of self is too seriously threatened by the idea of abandoning former beliefs, then the accommodations will be taken to any extreme necessary to maintain the protective paradigm, even if those accommodations defy logic, reason, and intuitive moral standards.
beastie wrote:This same question - why do some people continue to believe with "accommodations" - could be asked about many different faiths. The Jehovah Witness faith provides a clear example of this. One of the most important edicts their first leader issued was the exact date of the second coming of Christ. The date came and went, no second coming. So explanations were offered, and another date provided. Again, the date came and went without the second coming of Christ. If I recall correctly, the cycle even repeated a third time.
Some Witnesses lost faith, and other continued to believe. What was the difference between the two groups?
My ideas are influenced by Eric Hoffer's book The True Believer (which means something different than TBM). I think that some people become so enmeshed within their belief systems that they no longer have a separate "I". Therefore, the loss of the belief system feels like the loss of "I". Other believers, no matter how dear and cherished their beliefs are, still have a separate, core "I". Therefore, they can actually conceive of losing the belief system without the loss of "I".
Interesting. Then are you saying that all apologists are so enmeshed within the Mormon belief system, they are stuck with it, or lose their self-identities?
charity wrote:I don't believe this hana. And this is what is so puzzling to me. I really am trying to understand it.
Well, sometimes you remind me of the "old" me. I knew it was true, for Heavenly Father had told me so; I was sure that wherever science seemed to contradict the church, it was just that science hadn't caught up, or some discovery was just around the corner; happiness existed for me only within the church. I'm not sure I was as black and white as you seem to be, but almost.
The above type of response from you is exactly the reason that JAK recently made this statement to antishock8:
This should give you some idea of what you’re dealing with in Charity.
Don’t attempt to confuse her with the facts or requirement for evidence for faith-based conclusions, she is not interested.
You don't want to engage in thought, charity. You want to put up a post and ignore any challenge to your statements or your thinking.
I don't want to engage in long discussions of highly irreleveant posts filled with minutiae. JAK has repeated himself over and over about transparency, and I have responded. But it rolls right off his back and he comes right back with the same exact post, even when the topic is different.
This topic is not about faith-based conclusions. And the inclusion of a l-o-o-o-n-g post about tha ttopic is tiresome.
charity wrote:I don't believe this hana. And this is what is so puzzling to me. I really am trying to understand it.
Well, sometimes you remind me of the "old" me. I knew it was true, for Heavenly Father had told me so; I was sure that wherever science seemed to contradict the church, it was just that science hadn't caught up, or some discovery was just around the corner; happiness existed for me only within the church. I'm not sure I was as black and white as you seem to be, but almost.
Again, this is puzzling. Why did what you knew get swallowed up in what you didn't know?
charity wrote:I don't believe this hana. And this is what is so puzzling to me. I really am trying to understand it.
Well, sometimes you remind me of the "old" me. I knew it was true, for Heavenly Father had told me so; I was sure that wherever science seemed to contradict the church, it was just that science hadn't caught up, or some discovery was just around the corner; happiness existed for me only within the church. I'm not sure I was as black and white as you seem to be, but almost.
Again, this is puzzling. Why did what you knew get swallowed up in what you didn't know?
It wasn't that at all. It was when I realized that I didn't "know" after all. My conscience quit bothering me after that.
