Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)

[_Yoda]

Your idea of a discussion is hanging onto your position like a bulldog for pages on end, belittling everyone who disagrees with you.

You like Jason focus on "process". I've yet to see you participate in a discussion with a focus on issues in which you employed some actual critical thinking.

I notice that in your counter here, Marg, you didn't deny what your "process" is.

In conversations with you, Marg, you are exactly right. I do focus on "process" because you make it impossible not to.

I have carried on thoughtful conversations with Beastie, TD, Abman, Jersey Girl, Eric, DCP, Scratch, etc. on many different issues. Am I going to bother to pull these up? No, because if you haven't chosen to read my posts which have spanned over the past three years, that is not my fault.

The folks I have carried on successful discussions with have had mutual respect for me, and I have had mutual respect for them, even though we have differed, at times, on the topic at hand.

Based on the fact that they have been able to engage in respectful conversation, I have not been put on the defensive, and I have actually been able to open myself up to be educated on their point of view.

I can't do that with you because your bullying "process" will not allow that to happen. You immediately choose to put me on the defensive. And, you don't do this by simply stating your position. You do it through attacking either my character, my intelligence, or, by trying to assert what I believe, even when I have clearly stated otherwise.


What's really ironic, Marg, is that you and I do actually agree on certain aspects of Mormonism. You, however, manage to even turn that into a negative.

For some reason, you seem to have a very vehement distaste for people like Jason, Harmony, Moksha, and myself, who have chosen to remain in the Church, even though we don't agree with all of the doctrine. You also seem to resent our attempts to initiate change from the inside.

I find this rather fascinating, particularly since you have never been a member of the Mormon Church. I can understand TBM members like Gaz, DCP, BC, and Nehor calling us hypocrites, because, at least they are members of the Church, and understand the culture. I can also understand former members of the Church like Mercury, Beastie, Schmo, and John Larsen possibly feeling that way, because, again, they understand the culture. Surprisingly, though, very few of my conversations with any of these folks has been as combative as my conversations with you.

They have learned how to be respectful of other views. They know how to be polite. You openly refuse to be polite, at least, to me.

Ironically, Marg, your "process" hinders the very aspect of critical thinking you wish to portray.

[_marg]

As noted I do not really have more than a general understanding about Deism. I would like to explore it further.

I don't think there is much to explore Jason. Having such a belief does away with all the claims of organized religion which incorporates an interfering with mankind sort of God. In such a case one wouldn't assume any divine authority from a person or sacred text to speak on behalf of a God. Obviously one wouldn't need to spend time praying, attending church and even pondering about what God might be up to.

As for no God involved in Mormonism, I do not know. My basic position at least currently is that God has been involved to some extent in most the major religions movements in the world and even some not so major.

Well then I would not consider you a deist at all.

In most cases God has given inspiration that would give a people and a culture, or even some people in a culture a guide for things spiritual as well as some moors for moral living. But at the same time a lot of the ideas of men and a particular culture may get mixed in. One cannot expect that persons living 4000 years ago will see things as we do today.

Perhaps you are softening up your belief in an interfering with mankind sort of God, but it doesn't appear close to a deist position...in my opinion.

And I'm not going to argue with you about what a God has or hasn't done. To make claims of any sort of a God amounts to no more than mere speculation. One could spend a lifetime doing that couldn't they and would they be further ahead than an atheist who hasn't? You do seem to believe that a God belief gives people moral values. There is a lot more than a God belief giving people moral values. People learn morals from parents, friends, media and to some extent laws. Was it moral for J.Smith to use religion give himself religious authority and speak on behalf of God to obtain sex...no it wasn't. So sometimes Jason God belief can be used in immoral ways. What is even more important than a God belief is learning to "critically think well" :). Just your saying that you are exploring the notion of deism shows to me, perhaps not to others that you are attempting to think outside your religious box.

So for Joseph Smith and Mormonism, I hold out the possibility that God could have inspired Smith and the others involved in the founding of Mormonism to some extent but that a lot of Joseph Smith's ideas got mingled in along the way. Of course there are a lot of problems with this as well.

Or the more likely is that Smith could have simply been a con man, which we know he was previous to publishing the Book of Mormon and could have along with others written it..since it is an obvious 19 century written fictional piece of work. A deist would not speculate a God somehow inspiring Smith.

[_marg]

Frankly marg, I often don't discuss issues with you because, due to your overbearing style, it is totally unpleasant. Further, if I see you bullying and and calling people stupid-and yes saying someone lacks critical thinking ability on an almost non stop basis when you don't agree with them as well as questioning their intellect, is calling them stupid-then I will call you out on it. If you don't like it tough. I really don't care.

Where do you get the impression that I care that you don't like me using the concept "critical thinking"? That is pretty much what it's all about in any of these discussions about religion. While you keep going on in this thread going about how i call people stupid the implication being I do this ad nauseum, I actually do not. I have brought up critical thinking often, because as I said that's what it's pretty much all about. Frankly some beliefs are so ridiculous that they deserve to be disrespected. A literal Garden of Eden and Jesus dying for mankind's sins of christianity is so ridiculous that it should be shown disrespect...despite your appeal to numbers of people who are counted as Christian. As I said I doubt very much that there are 2 billion people in this world who believe in a literal Garden of Eden and a man/god Jesus who supposedly died for mankind's sins. I suppose it's not impossible because mankind on average is pretty damn stupid.

Also, I will call you out on ad hominems especially. You complain about them quickly when directed at you yet you use them frequently.

Jason when I point them out, it is because they are being used in a serious discussion and might be employed as a tactical manouever to shift focus off the issue under discussion.

It is really quite simple to disagree with a position without being demeaning. I don't expect that you will attempt to do this though.

Anyway, enough said. This is beating a dead horse.

I'm not particularly interested in your position on this, because I note you don't involve yourself much in serious discussion. You tend to along with a few others on this board, pop into a threads to criticize process, not to put your critical thinking cap on to discuss an actual issue. It is easy attacking process.

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't think there is much to explore Jason. Having such a belief does away with all the claims of organized religion which incorporates an interfering with mankind sort of God. In such a case one wouldn't assume any divine authority from a person or sacred text to speak on behalf of a God. Obviously one wouldn't need to spend time praying, attending church and even pondering about what God might be up to.

As for no God involved in Mormonism, I do not know. My basic position at least currently is that God has been involved to some extent in most the major religions movements in the world and even some not so major.

Well then I would not consider you a deist at all.

You could be right. I do not understand Deism other than in general. My understanding is it does away with a need for organized religion but it does not prohibit one from participating in it if one wishes to do so. But perhaps a belief that God may or may not use organized religion steps outside the philosophy.

In most cases God has given inspiration that would give a people and a culture, or even some people in a culture a guide for things spiritual as well as some moors for moral living. But at the same time a lot of the ideas of men and a particular culture may get mixed in. One cannot expect that persons living 4000 years ago will see things as we do today.

Perhaps you are softening up your belief in an interfering with mankind sort of God, but it doesn't appear close to a deist position...in my opinion.

I am exploring many ideas about God and religion and so on.

And I'm not going to argue with you about what a God has or hasn't done. To make claims of any sort of a God amounts to no more than mere speculation. One could spend a lifetime doing that couldn't they and would they be further ahead than an atheist who hasn't? You do seem to believe that a God belief gives people moral values. There is a lot more than a God belief giving people moral values.

Sure. I agree. I did not say this is all the comes from a belief in God. But like it or not many of our societal values are based in a Judeo Christian philosophy. Some of that is very good and the development of western culture at least could be very different and perhaps not near as good had we not had it. Some of it may need to be improved upon.

People learn morals from parents, friends, media and to some extent laws.

Of course they do. And much of what parents, friends and even laws to some extent teach comes from some religious teachings and values.

Was it moral for J.Smith to use religion give himself religious authority and speak on behalf of God to obtain sex...no it wasn't. So sometimes Jason God belief can be used in immoral ways.

No doubt.

What is even more important than a God belief is learning to "critically think well" :).

Why?

Just your saying that you are exploring the notion of deism shows to me, perhaps not to others that you are attempting to think outside your religious box.

If you followed what I have said an many threads here about many things you would know I have been in such a process for sometime now.

Or the more likely is that Smith could have simply been a con man, which we know he was previous to publishing the Book of Mormon and could have along with others written it..since it is an obvious 19 century written fictional piece of work.

Could be.

A deist would not speculate a God somehow inspiring Smith.

As noted you could be right. I have not studied this enough to know.

[_Jason Bourne]

Where do you get the impression that I care that you don't like me using the concept "critical thinking"?

I know you don't care. I did not say you did. You don't give a rats ass much about what anyone says if it crosses you.

That is pretty much what it's all about in any of these discussions about religion. While you keep going on in this thread going about how i call people stupid the implication being I do this ad nauseum, I actually do not.

Actually you do, as nauseum. I could find hundreds of such instances were it worth my time. It is not.

I have brought up critical thinking often, because as I said that's what it's pretty much all about.

It is they way you constantly bring it up marg. Over and over. We all know you think you a high level critical thinker and that you think many here are not. Hell just put it in your sig line then you don't have to repeat it over and over.

Frankly some beliefs are so ridiculous that they deserve to be disrespected.

Kind persons can be respectful even if they don't agree.

A literal Garden of Eden and Jesus dying for mankind's sins of christianity is so ridiculous that it should be shown disrespect...despite your appeal to numbers of people who are counted as Christian. As I said I doubt very much that there are 2 billion people in this world who believe in a literal Garden of Eden and a man/god Jesus who supposedly died for mankind's sins.

All I said was there are 2 Billion Christians. What those 2 billion literally believe I have no idea. Clearly less than 2 Billion believe these things. Maybe half, a quarter, who knows?

I suppose it's not impossible because mankind on average is pretty damn stupid.

It is really quite simple to disagree with a position without being demeaning. I don't expect that you will attempt to do this though.

Anyway, enough said. This is beating a dead horse.

I'm not particularly interested in your position on this, because I note you don't involve yourself much in serious discussion. You tend to along with a few others on this board, pop into a threads to criticize process, not to put your critical thinking cap on to discuss an actual issue. It is easy attacking process.

Ah the typical marg put down. If she does not like what you say she attempts to marginalize you as a light weight participant of the board. Actually marg I have contributed substance to many threads on a variety of subjects that interest me and are important to me. But whatever you say because there is no convincing you otherwise. Indeed you seem to be a legend in your own mind.

Carry on.

[_marg]

Your idea of a discussion is hanging onto your position like a bulldog for pages on end, belittling everyone who disagrees with you.

You like Jason focus on "process". I've yet to see you participate in a discussion with a focus on issues in which you employed some actual critical thinking.

I notice that in your counter here, Marg, you didn't deny what your "process" is.

Fine I'll deny it...I don't go on for pages like a bull dog, that's pure B.S. on your part. I'm engaging you on here currently despite the fact that I realize it is a waste of time for me. Perhaps you call this engaging like a pit bull.

The way this started out is that I commented on the ridiculousness of arguing over nonsense such as what the afterlife is like, as if one could do so logically. I pointed out how stupid it was and how I think those who engage in these sorts of discussions are being stupid. What I notice is not one of you have addressed that point, instead you, Jason and Paul have focussed on my comment that such discussions are stupid. Apparently none of you agree and take it as a personal offense that someone should disrespect such discussions. I don't think beliefs just because they are viewed by some as "sacred" should be off limits to criticism...nor the people who hold them or support or encourage them.

In conversations with you, Marg, you are exactly right. I do focus on "process" because you make it impossible not to.

Your focus was to attack .. not to address the substance of my post..which was that discussion of fantasy/speculation of an afterlife as if real was ridiculous.

I have carried on thoughtful conversations with Beastie, TD, Abman, Jersey Girl, Eric, DCP, Scratch, etc. on many different issues. Am I going to bother to pull these up? No, because if you haven't chosen to read my posts which have spanned over the past three years, that is not my fault.

And my focus in this thread was the ridiculousness of arguing over details of the after-life, which you ignored and elected to focus on personal attack instead.

The folks I have carried on successful discussions with have had mutual respect for me, and I have had mutual respect for them, even though we have differed, at times, on the topic at hand.

Some ideas are stupid and deserve to be called such.

Based on the fact that they have been able to engage in respectful conversation, I have not been put on the defensive, and I have actually been able to open myself up to be educated on their point of view.

You weren't mentioned in my post to which you first commented Liz. I was addressing Paul and Gaz. You sought my attention. Apparently you disagreed with my point though you didn't address it, instead your focus was personal attack.

I can't do that with you because your bullying "process" will not allow that to happen. You immediately choose to put me on the defensive. And, you don't do this by simply stating your position. You do it through attacking either my character, my intelligence, or, by trying to assert what I believe, even when I have clearly stated otherwise.

I put you on the defensive in this thread? As I mention previously not all beliefs deserve respect.

What's really ironic, Marg, is that you and I do actually agree on certain aspects of Mormonism. You, however, manage to even turn that into a negative.

I have no idea what we agree on. Is that my fault or yours?

For some reason, you seem to have a very vehement distaste for people like Jason, Harmony, Moksha, and myself, who have chosen to remain in the Church, even though we don't agree with all of the doctrine. You also seem to resent our attempts to initiate change from the inside.

What can you possibly change? The Book of Mormon is a fictional story, written up by con men passed off as literally true. What on earth are you trying to change? You think kids should keep being exposed to these lies, that the Book of Mormon is sacred, and literally true?

I find this rather fascinating, particularly since you have never been a member of the Mormon Church. I can understand TBM members like Gaz, DCP, BC, and Nehor calling us hypocrites, because, at least they are members of the Church, and understand the culture. I can also understand former members of the Church like Mercury, Beastie, Schmo, and John Larsen possibly feeling that way, because, again, they understand the culture. Surprisingly, though, very few of my conversations with any of these folks has been as combative as my conversations with you.

One can be honest when one is not trying to be a friend.

They have learned how to be respectful of other views. They know how to be polite. You openly refuse to be polite, at least, to me.

Ironically, Marg, your "process" hinders the very aspect of critical thinking you wish to portray.

Perhaps... perhaps not.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

This is one of the most dumbass things you've ever stated:

You like Jason focus on "process". I've yet to see you participate in a discussion with a focus on issues in which you employed some actual critical thinking.

Focus on process? What the flippin' hell do you think "critical thinking" is, marg? It's a process. So is conversation/dialogue, so is debate, so is analysis, so is finding common ground with which to approach people.

The processes that people use to communicate and develop their ideas are as diverse as the individuals who employ them. Your lack of versatility is what inhibits both your delivery and reception.

Good grief, lady. Seriously.

[_marg]

Where do you get the impression that I care that you don't like me using the concept "critical thinking"?

I know you don't care. I did not say you did. You don't give a rats ass much about what anyone says if it crosses you.

No Jason I didn't say I didn't give a rat's ass what anyone says that is your assessment. I said I don't care that you don't like me bringing up the concept of "critical thinking". There are people who have and/or do post on this board who I have high respect for what they say.

That is pretty much what it's all about in any of these discussions about religion. While you keep going on in this thread going about how i call people stupid the implication being I do this ad nauseum, I actually do not.

Actually you do, as nauseum. I could find hundreds of such instances were it worth my time. It is not.

And Jason ..you are petty minded..and focus on being critical of process. If you are so interested in good discussion then quit focussing on process and engage in discussion on issues.

I have brought up critical thinking often, because as I said that's what it's pretty much all about.

It is they way you constantly bring it up marg. Over and over. We all know you think you a high level critical thinker and that you think many here are not. Hell just put it in your sig line then you don't have to repeat it over and over.

This accusation that I think I am a high critical thinker has been used by the likes of you and a few other petty minded individuals as an attack. I'm tired of correcting you guys and saying that I don't think I'm a good critical thinker. What I say gets ignored because it is much easier to use it as an attack. Once again I'll addresss this...just because I bring up the concept of good critical thinking..does not mean I employ it well. I have said before on many occasions I have a poor memory, I lack knowledge in many areas, I'm not very articulate..those are ingredients which make an excellent critical thinker.

Frankly some beliefs are so ridiculous that they deserve to be disrespected.

Kind persons can be respectful even if they don't agree.

Jason let's get one thing straight here. In all the posts on this board you've spent a hell of a lot more time attacking me, that I ever have attacking you. Do I demand you respect me?

A literal Garden of Eden and Jesus dying for mankind's sins of christianity is so ridiculous that it should be shown disrespect...despite your appeal to numbers of people who are counted as Christian. As I said I doubt very much that there are 2 billion people in this world who believe in a literal Garden of Eden and a man/god Jesus who supposedly died for mankind's sins.

All I said was there are 2 Billion Christians. What those 2 billion literally believe I have no idea. Clearly less than 2 Billion believe these things. Maybe half, a quarter, who knows?

It seemed to me you were using 'sheer number of christians' as an argument that belief in a literal garden of Eden and a man/god jesus .. are not ridiculous.

I'm not particularly interested in your position on this, because I note you don't involve yourself much in serious discussion. You tend to along with a few others on this board, pop into a threads to criticize process, not to put your critical thinking cap on to discuss an actual issue. It is easy attacking process.

Ah the typical marg put down. If she does not like what you say she attempts to marginalize you as a light weight participant of the board. Actually marg I have contributed substance to many threads on a variety of subjects that interest me and are important to me. But whatever you say because there is no convincing you otherwise. Indeed you seem to be a legend in your own mind.

Carry on.

I'm not carrying on a discussion on any issue, I'm simply addressing yours and Liz's personal attack posts. You both apparently don't like me pointing out, that some discussions such as about what sort of an afterlife will exist..is nonsense and that people who carry on such discussions are being stupid. And you both have ignored that point. I may be nasty, mean, disrespectful and whatever else you may think, however that doesn't change the fact that people who believe many nonsensical religious beliefs are credulous individuals. That's the part you both keep ignoring. I'm only the messenger.

[_marg]

marg,

This is one of the most dumbass things you've ever stated:

You like Jason focus on "process". I've yet to see you participate in a discussion with a focus on issues in which you employed some actual critical thinking.

Focus on process? What the flippin' hell do you think "critical thinking" is, marg? It's a process. So is conversation/dialogue, so is debate, so is analysis, so is finding common ground with which to approach people.

The issue I brought up, that discussion of an afterlife as if real and as if it can logically be argued about is ridiculous, neither Jason, nor Liz addressed it. Being critical of the way I discuss is focussing on process instead. It's avoidance of the issue.

The processes that people use to communicate and develop their ideas are as diverse as the individuals who employ them. Your lack of versatility is what inhibits both your delivery and reception.

Good grief, lady. Seriously.

J.G. there are many who don't like the way you discuss. What issue are you addressing in your post?

[_marg]

You could be right. I do not understand Deism other than in general. My understanding is it does away with a need for organized religion but it does not prohibit one from participating in it if one wishes to do so. But perhaps a belief that God may or may not use organized religion steps outside the philosophy.

An atheist can participate in an organized religion. A belief that a God may use organized religion is not consistent with deism which is a belief in a non interfering with mankind sort of entity.

Sure. I agree. I did not say this is all the comes from a belief in God. But like it or not many of our societal values are based in a Judeo Christian philosophy. Some of that is very good and the development of western culture at least could be very different and perhaps not near as good had we not had it. Some of it may need to be improved upon.

Well this would make for a good discussion. What has Judeo Christian philosophy provided Jason?

People learn morals from parents, friends, media and to some extent laws.

Of course they do. And much of what parents, friends and even laws to some extent teach comes from some religious teachings and values.

Like what?

Was it moral for J.Smith to use religion give himself religious authority and speak on behalf of God to obtain sex...no it wasn't. So sometimes Jason God belief can be used in immoral ways.

No doubt.

That's it?

What is even more important than a God belief is learning to "critically think well" :).

Why?

As as example it is a good critical thinker who opposes slavery because they appreciate humans are equal. Whereas a non critical thinker might justify slavery based upon it being an acceptable practice in the O.T./authority. A good critical thinker would oppose polygamy because it doesn't provide for a good quality of life for the families but creates hardship. A poor critical thinker relying upon religious authority might accept it because the authority says to do so. A good critical thinker makes decisions upon good reasoning, rather than non questioning acceptance of authority which religions encourage.