It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:17 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:02 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 9352
pogi wrote:
Quote:
We will have to agree to disagree, then, as I do find it creepy that you would say to a fellow human being that you hope they one day "see [your] light."


So critics of the church don't want members to "see [their] light"?

When I said I, I meant exactly that. Your assumption that I was speaking for all "critics of the church" is incorrect. I don't even know how you are defining that group- i hope you are not arbitrarily defining every poster here as just and only that because that really leaves out a lot of interesting information about people here.
pogi wrote:
Either way, accusing us of being "creepy" is very different from the original accusation of being "uncharitable".
Incorrect assumption again. I said I found your statement creepy. I don't even know what "us" you are referring to. Mormons? Mopologists? Apologists? MD&D posters on a stealth run to the enemy, trying to convert a soul or two?!! :lol: i kid, i kid. Stem's comment made me realize you are a poster on MD&D also- welcome!
pogi wrote:
Are you referring to their Gish Gallop attempt at drowning me with data that they want me to research "10K comments" on this site and "more than 3 decades+ of data" from different sites instead of offering me any convincing evidence or argument on their own?
i don't think you are using that term correctly:

Quote:
Gish gallop - Wikipedia

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

And yes, to echo Moksha and Stem, welcome to the Board!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm
Posts: 3809
Pogi wrote:
My claim is that his accusations are speculative in nature. So I am confused as to what evidence he is asking for. He is the one making the accusation in the first place, isn't the burden of proof on him? And no, expecting someone to research decades of online interactions as "evidence" of anything is not going to cut it :rolleyes: We are clearly not going to agree on interpretation of intent in this particular instance, so what makes you think we are going to agree on the interpretation of any other statements? As I have said previously, a person is usually deeper than his words.

Pogi,

There is so much documented evidence that DCP is being insincere that it's kind of hard to take you seriously. There are threads here that are 20+ pages long highlighting specific instances of DCP's trademark insincere behavior. Let me know if you need help searching.

And, as far as DCP being insincere in regards to Carl Sagan, Dr. Scratch is correct as usual. You might be suprised to know that DCP/Mopologists have published articles where they compare Carl Sagan to a modern Korihor. Is DCP being sincere about Carl Sagan, someone who FARMS has descibed as a Korihor? Of course DCP isn't being sincere about Carl Sagan. It's clear that DCP/Mopologists regard Carl Sagan with utter contempt.

It literally took me just a few minutes to pull up this info. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to DCP and his mocking/insincerity of Carl Sagan. Here are 5 documented examples of how DCP/Mopologists mockingly regard Carl Sagan. There is no doubt the Mopologists are snickering and patting each other on the back at the prospect of Carl Sagan with a TK Smoothie.

--From FARMS, "Through a Glass, Darkly" Daniel C. Peterson, with John Gee. In this lovely article, DCP discusses the evils and misguided efforts of atheist scientists (Carl Sagan included):

DCP wrote:
(The recent Hollywood film Contact. based on a novel by the late astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan, is an effective current presentation of one side of the question) and Phillip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley of whom I have written earlier in this Review, continues to serve as an incisive critic of materialistic ideology masquerading as science, smuggling atheistic presuppositions into its conclusions.
https://publications.mi.BYU.edu/publica ... uskirk.pdf

--From FARMS, "Science, Pseudoscience, and Religious Belief" By Allen Buskirk. Here we get a very polemic review of the many reasons Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is ridiculous rubbish and not fit for a Mormon to read. Carl Sagan is also actually compared to a modern Korihor.

Quote:
Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” [is] a repetitious, cloying, sanctimonious, self-regarding—yet oddly entertaining—sermon on the evils of superstition... Sagan writes, “One of the great commandments of science is ‘Mistrust arguments from authority’. In this deliciously ironic sentence, Sagan offers us an argument from authority that attempts to refute arguments from authority. The whole book resonates with this rhetoric of fear of manipulation. Latter-day Saints may be reminded of similar teachings of Korihor.

https://publications.mi.BYU.edu/publica ... uskirk.pdf

--From the INTERPRETER "Reason, Experience, and the Existence of God" by Daniel C. Peterson. Here DCP talks about the futility of science without religious revelation and discusses the wasted effort of "valuable" resources by SETI.

DCP wrote:
A small number of biologists, engineers, chemists, and astronomers (including a newly minted planetary scientist named Carl Sagan) came together to discuss whether it was worthwhile to devote valuable time with a radio telescope to a search for radio broadcasts from potential other planets, and, if so, how best to do it..

The Interpreter Foundation was established on the premise that both reason and revelation have their place in determining religious truth. We believe reasoned investigation to be essential, but we will not discount revelation.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/reaso ... ce-of-god/

--From Sic Et Non "Some Dispatches From The Front Lines Of My Unceasing War Against Science"
November 14, 2017 by Dan Peterson. Here, DCP quotes from Steven Shapin unfavorable review of Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World."

Quote:
Contemporary science often requires that we ignore the evidence provided by our own eyes in favor of abstract theories. How many have ever seen a quark or a muon or even an electron? What evidence do we really, personally, have that the earth orbits the sun? To the human eye, it appears that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, while the solid earth, terra firma, remains motionless and at rest. What sensory data tells us that the earth revolves annually around the sun? None.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ience.html

_________________
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014


Last edited by Everybody Wang Chung on Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 12371
Location: Multiverse
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
<snip a damning collection of pathetic Petersonisms.>


DCP is just another lazy creationist, except even more D-K delusional than the usual Bible College "Doctor"--he also buys an invisible kingdom of Hebrew Maya and a Mormonized bundle of pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, pseudoastronomy, pseudolinguistics, all to the praise of his determinedly ignorant "fans". :lol:

_________________
When a master has a Negro and uses him well, he is much better off than if he was free.-Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:11 pm 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Quote:
And Pogi's a good guy.

This just goes to show how easy it is to misunderstand people online :wink:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
pogi wrote:
This just goes to show how easy it is to misunderstand people online :wink:


You're not fooling me. :lol:

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:13 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7500
Location: Cassius University
pogi wrote:

First, you haven't demonstrated that Joseph Fielding Smith ever taught the concept of "TK Smoothie" (a rather comical term I have never heard before), in that there will be no genitalia in the lower kingdoms.


I agree with you that President Smith's language is ambiguous. What that means, though, is that it demands interpretation (ideally from those who've self-anointed themselves as Mormon Interpreters). So it could be that he is implying that men in the lower kingdoms will be impotent. But there are other aspects of his commentary that are worth reviewing.

Quote:
All he taught is that "the power of procreation will be removed." He then clearly speculates as to what that means by prefacing his comment with "I take it [to mean]..." then continues, "men and women will, in these kingdoms, be...neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection."
https://i.redd.it/ualcpl3y0oxz.jpg


He also says that "some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the [lower kingdoms]" (emphasis added). He doesn't say that the "functions" "will be absent" or that they "won't be present." He says they "will not appear"--a verb that usually refers to the sense of sight. Meaning, something that you *would* expect to "see" in the CK, will not appear--i.e., won't be visible--in the lower kingdoms. As you yourself already pointed out, Pres. Smith notes that folks in these kingdoms will "be..neither man nor woman." This implies that physical distinguishing features (genitals, female breasts, etc.) will be absent. Doesn't it?

Quote:
Not only does he not mention genetilia, he clearly takes the interpretation that sex itself (which you freely admit is not tied to genetilia) will be absent in these lower kingdoms. This opinion absolutely is in conflict with the Proclamation.


I didn't say "sex"; I said "gender." And I disagree that his remarks conflict with the Proclamation. Gender, as I mentioned earlier, is understood in the scholarly literature to refer to one's socially constructed identity. "Sex," on the other hand, refers to the features of a person's biological body. The Proclamation says that gender is eternal; not "sex." Again, for an illustrative example: is Caitlyn Jenner a man or a woman? In terms of gender, is Jenner male or female? What about in terms of "sex"? Or what about somebody like RuPaul? Are sex and gender one and the same in that case?

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:53 pm 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Perhaps I am a bit misunderstood (except for maybe with Runtu), My only point is that no amount of historical context can prove that DCP wishes eternal harm upon his opponents. To assume anything BEYOND what he actually wrote is just that...an assumption. There is no way around it. You may argue that your historical interactions with him cause you to interpret his language one way or the other, but it is still just one interpretation, based on interpretations of previous comments. One interpretation upon another. Only DCP can speak for DCP.

I am not arguing that I approve of DCP's style and approach to apologetics. In fact, I have a pretty strong distaste for most apologetics in general. I agree that he can come off as snarky, insincere, arrogant, dismissive, etc. If I was on the other end of his language, I really wouldn't like him either. But I think it important to recognize that a person is more complex internally than their on-line persona gives them credit for. He is a human being capable of complex and contrasting human emotions for a single person all at the same time. He is not all black or all white. To demand that not just DCP, but all apologists, have never made a sincere or charitable remark to a critic, seems ironically insincere to me. Too often I think we dehumanize our opponents just enough to feel good about thrashing them. We see this in the political arena on both sides, and we see it in apologetics on both sides. However, if you all are like me (which I have no reason to believe otherwise) despite my sometimes strong rhetoric, I would never wish eternal ill will upon my worst enemy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:02 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7500
Location: Cassius University
pogi wrote:
My only point is that no amount of historical context can prove that DCP wishes eternal harm upon his opponents.

Well, does it mean that you wish someone ill if you are simply following the dictates of the Prophets? I mean, I assume (charitably, perhaps?) that Dr. Peterson truly wishes that Sagan had joined the Church and had repented of his "arrogance" and "Scientism." But, Sagan chose not to do this, and now he is relegated to one of the lower kingdoms. If a subsequent consequence of this is a "TK Smoothie," then is that really "wishing eternal harm"? Or is it merely having a chuckle or two over the fact that someone made a poor choice?

Quote:
I am not arguing that I approve of DCP's style and approach to apologetics. In fact, I have a pretty strong distaste for most apologetics in general. I agree that he can come off as snarky, insincere, arrogant, dismissive, etc. If I was on the other end of his language, I really wouldn't like him either.

It seems to me that you may be closer to being on the same page with folks here than you realize.

Quote:
To demand that not just DCP, but all apologists, have never made a sincere or charitable remark to a critic, seems ironically insincere to me.

For the sake of clarification: I think that most of us distinguish between apologists and Mopologists. An LDS apologist includes *everybody*, including folks that many of us respect--like Teryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, Kevin Barney and David Bokovoy. These are folks that all--in one way, shape, or form--advocate for and defend the LDS Church. But they stand in sharp contrast to the Mopologists: folks like Daniel Peterson, Louis Midgley, John Gee, Greg Smith, and William Hamblin: people who have a long history of doing "smear pieces," lying, being abusive, and so on. So when we say that "Mopologists do X," we are really referring to quite a specific group of people, and not to every last person who has engaged in LDS apologetics.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:45 am 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Doctor Scratch wrote:
He also says that "some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the [lower kingdoms]" (emphasis added). He doesn't say that the "functions" "will be absent" or that they "won't be present." He says they "will not appear"--a verb that usually refers to the sense of sight. Meaning, something that you *would* expect to "see" in the CK, will not appear--i.e., won't be visible--in the lower kingdoms. As you yourself already pointed out, Pres. Smith notes that folks in these kingdoms will "be..neither man nor woman." This implies that physical distinguishing features (genitals, female breasts, etc.) will be absent. Doesn't it?

The functional word here is...well..."functions". To clarify some anatomical/physiological terms for you - bodily "functions" do NOT refer to anatomical body parts, but rather to their physiological processes and systems. You are confusing anatomy with physiology. Some functions of the human body are urination, defecation, respiration, perspiration, different neurological processes, hormonal processes, etc. The system that Joseph Fielding Smith is referencing is the reproductive system, whose functions are to produce gametes (both male and female), deposit gametes (males), and nourish and protect offspring until birth (females). If a reproductive function is not "apparent", this in no way means that the anatomical genitalia are not present, but rather that the physiological processes of reproduction are apparently not functioning.

Quote:
I didn't say "sex"; I said "gender." And I disagree that his remarks conflict with the Proclamation. Gender, as I mentioned earlier, is understood in the scholarly literature to refer to one's socially constructed identity. "Sex," on the other hand, refers to the features of a person's biological body. The Proclamation says that gender is eternal; not "sex." Again, for an illustrative example: is Caitlyn Jenner a man or a woman? In terms of gender, is Jenner male or female? What about in terms of "sex"? Or what about somebody like RuPaul? Are sex and gender one and the same in that case?

What did Joseph Fielding Smith mean by "sex"? Who knows? It seems like "sex" and "gender" have been used synonymously by most laypersons for a long time. In fact, much of the modern literature still does not make a distinction. The distinction seems to be fairly modern, at least in the awareness of the general public. Either way, Smith's comment is simply his opinion. I think he made that fairly clear.

To use the same example that you used, if a soldier is wounded in combat and loses his genitals is he still the same sex, or just the same gender, or both? You see, sex is defined by more than phenotype alone. In fact, some literature suggests that "gender" can define sex:

Quote:
Roughly speaking, sex can be considered in terms of three categories: genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, and gender.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10943/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:57 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7500
Location: Cassius University
Your response, pogi, doesn't account for this line:

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
men and women will, in these kingdoms, be...neither man nor woman

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:16 am 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Well, does it mean that you wish someone ill if you are simply following the dictates of the Prophets? I mean, I assume (charitably, perhaps?) that Dr. Peterson truly wishes that Sagan had joined the Church and had repented of his "arrogance" and "Scientism." But, Sagan chose not to do this, and now he is relegated to one of the lower kingdoms. If a subsequent consequence of this is a "TK Smoothie," then is that really "wishing eternal harm"? Or is it merely having a chuckle or two over the fact that someone made a poor choice?

No, following the dictates of the prophets does not equate to ill will. One tenant of our faith is not to judge, especially in terms of final judgment. We don't know the heart of Sagan or what opportunities will be afforded him in the spirit world. We do not conclude as Mormons, that Sagan is "relegated" to one of the lower kingdoms. It is not for us to judge.

Quote:
It seems to me that you may be closer to being on the same page with folks here than you realize.

I am glad to hear that. But let me make it clear, I am equally turned off by the rhetoric of most who oppose the so called "mopologists". To me, it appears they are made of the same cloth. In fact, the rhetoric appears to be much more inflammatory from posters here then I have ever seen from these so called "mopologists."
To me, Mormon apologetics should be practiced as an extension of missionary work and performed in the same spirit. Otherwise it is nothing more than a contest of ego. Those who defend the faith should be exemplars of the faith, with virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, Godliness, and charity, and I will add humility to the list. Of course we are all human and can't expect to live these principles perfectly. I certainly am frequently guilty of placing my ego above my faith sometimes, but I would like to see more effort on the part of many apologists/"mopologists".

Quote:
For the sake of clarification: I think that most of us distinguish between apologists and Mopologists. An LDS apologist includes *everybody*, including folks that many of us respect--like Teryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, Kevin Barney and David Bokovoy. These are folks that all--in one way, shape, or form--advocate for and defend the LDS Church. But they stand in sharp contrast to the Mopologists: folks like Daniel Peterson, Louis Midgley, John Gee, Greg Smith, and William Hamblin: people who have a long history of doing "smear pieces," lying, being abusive, and so on. So when we say that "Mopologists do X," we are really referring to quite a specific group of people, and not to every last person who has engaged in LDS apologetics.

Thanks for clarifying those two groups for me. It seems to be a rather derogatory term then (which is unfortunate). I don't know all of these apologists well enough to judge them, I can only speak for what I have seen, and yes, I agree that the rhetoric can be inflammatory at times, but I also see another side to them that perhaps certain biases may be blind to. My point is that people are not all black or all white as some seem to be portrayed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:36 am 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Your response, pogi, doesn't account for this line:

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
men and women will, in these kingdoms, be...neither man nor woman


Let me clarify then. A person identifying as either a man or a woman in society is largely defined by a persons gender identity and gender role. If that is what Joseph Fielding Smith was refering to, then the Proclamation puts his opinion to rest. If on the other hand, he was referring to "sex", I have already demonstrated that the absence or presence of genitalia does not necessarily define sex. So, to argue that genitalia will not be apparent in the lower kingdoms is a HUGE assumption based on a very vague quote - which I have already pointed out is really just an opinion (which is perhaps the most important point of all.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:44 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 9352
pogi wrote:
In fact, the rhetoric appears to be much more inflammatory from posters here then I have ever seen from these so called "mopologists."
:rolleyes:

Dr. Scratch wrote:
For the sake of clarification: I think that most of us distinguish between apologists and Mopologists. An LDS apologist includes *everybody*, including folks that many of us respect--like Teryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, Kevin Barney and David Bokovoy. These are folks that all--in one way, shape, or form--advocate for and defend the LDS Church. But they stand in sharp contrast to the Mopologists: folks like Daniel Peterson, Louis Midgley, John Gee, Greg Smith, and William Hamblin: people who have a long history of doing "smear pieces," lying, being abusive, and so on. So when we say that "Mopologists do X," we are really referring to quite a specific group of people, and not to every last person who has engaged in LDS apologetics.

pogi wrote:
Thanks for clarifying those two groups for me. It seems to be a rather derogatory term then (which is unfortunate). I don't know all of these apologists well enough to judge them, I can only speak for what I have seen, and yes, I agree that the rhetoric can be inflammatory at times, but I also see another side to them that perhaps certain biases may be blind to. My point is that people are not all black or all white as some seem to be portrayed.

I'm not understanding your point here. Dr. Scratch is defining Mopologists on the basis of their writings, you are defining rhetoric here as "more inflammatory" than that, but then you are arguing for viewing another side of apologists, not seen in their writings. Wouldn't your argument hold for all writers, equally, that there is a side to them that is unseen? If the argument holds for all, it is irrelevant to use it in defense of only one group. So why keep bringing this issue up to defend one group only? All one can do is evaluate mopologist's positions on the basis of their mopologist writings, and Dr. Scratch does so with great aplomb.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:42 am 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Lemmie wrote:
:rolleyes:

I haven't spent much time here, but...dang! FTM, woof woof Elder Holland (talk about dehumanization, someone actually photoshoped a dog head on him!) It does make it so much easier to thrash a person when you don't view them as human, doesn't it? ...need I go on?

Quote:
I'm not understanding your point here. Dr. Scratch is defining Mopologists on the basis of their writings, you are defining rhetoric here as "more inflammatory" than that, but then you are arguing for viewing another side of apologists, not seen in their writings. Wouldn't your argument hold for all writers, equally, that there is a side to them that is unseen? If the argument holds for all, it is irrelevant to use it in defense of only one group. So why keep bringing this issue up to defend one group only? All one can do is evaluate mopologist's positions on the basis of their mopologist writings, and Dr. Scratch does so with great aplomb.


I understand the confusion. I have been making several different points. You are right, one point I have argued is that there is more to a person than their writings. In all fairness though, if you go back and read my posts I have been very fair to both sides in this regard, making the point that we are all human and are deeper than our words. I absolutely use that in defense of both groups. I am not claiming that the critics of "mopologists" don't have a heart, in fact, if you go back you will see that I have argued the opposite.

The second point that I have made, is that writings don't interpret themselves. Is it possible that animosity, hurt-feelings, defensiveness, dislike, ego, etc. could bias a persons interpretation? Surely critics have felt that "monogomists" have misinterpreted/misunderstood their writings, right? Why should I assume that it would be any different for the other side? My argument is that critics might be blind to the true intent and meaning of the written words of "mopologists" sometimes. For example - I view the OP of this thread to be a huge misinterpretation of Peterson's words. My main point is that people are not all black or all white (yes, I include both sides).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
pogi wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
:rolleyes:

I haven't spent much time here, but...dang! FTM, woof woof Elder Holland (talk about dehumanization, someone actually photoshoped a dog head on him!) It does make it so much easier to thrash a person when you don't view them as human, doesn't it? ...need I go on?

I understand the confusion. I have been making several different points. You are right, one point I have argued is that there is more to a person than their writings. In all fairness though, if you go back and read my posts I have been very fair to both sides in this regard, making the point that we are all human and are deeper than our words. I absolutely use that in defense of both groups. I am not claiming that the critics of "mopologists" don't have a heart, in fact, if you go back you will see that I have argued the opposite.

The second point that I have made, is that writings don't interpret themselves. Is it possible that animosity, hurt-feelings, defensiveness, dislike, ego, etc. could bias a persons interpretation? Surely critics have felt that "monogomists" have misinterpreted/misunderstood their writings, right? Why should I assume that it would be any different for the other side? My argument is that critics might be blind to the true intent and meaning of the written words of "mopologists" sometimes. For example - I view the opening post of this thread to be a huge misinterpretation of Peterson's words. My main point is that people are not all black or all white (yes, I include both sides).


I agree with you. On rereading Dr. Peterson's post, I didn't see it as mean-spirited. Maybe it says something that I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, even if it's unconscious.

There are angry people on all sides, and the best we can do is try to look for the good in others rather than perpetuating the anger and hurt.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:16 pm 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Runtu wrote:
I agree with you. On rereading Dr. Peterson's post, I didn't see it as mean-spirited. Maybe it says something that I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, even if it's unconscious.

There are angry people on all sides, and the best we can do is try to look for the good in others rather than perpetuating the anger and hurt.

Thank you. And amen!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
pogi wrote:
Thank you. And amen!


Be careful about agreeing with me. Remember, I'm a spy.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:39 pm 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Runtu wrote:
pogi wrote:
Thank you. And amen!


Be careful about agreeing with me. Remember, I'm a spy.

Yes, but perhaps you are the one getting played...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:58 pm 
Star A

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:50 pm
Posts: 98
Lemmie wrote:
:rolleyes:


P.S. Go visit the Telestial Forum version of this very thread :rolleyes: On second thought...no, don't!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
pogi wrote:
Yes, but perhaps you are the one getting played...


Hey, I'm the only one around here allowed to be two-faced and disingenuous. Me get played? Not likely. :lol:

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:22 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 9352
Lemmie wrote:
pogi wrote:
In fact, the rhetoric appears to be much more inflammatory from posters here then I have ever seen from these so called "mopologists."
:rolleyes:

pogi wrote:
I haven't spent much time here, but...dang! FTM, woof woof Elder Holland (talk about dehumanization, someone actually photoshoped a dog head on him!) It does make it so much easier to thrash a person when you don't view them as human, doesn't it? ...need I go on?

You prove my point completely! You have stated you won't read any of the evidence suggested by Dr. Scratch, but you still have an opinion that what is posted here is worse. One of my first views of Peterson's blog was when he extremely inappropriately captioned a photo of Castro putting a blindfold on a person who was in front of a firing squad; imagine my shock at learning how he even more inappropriately mis-used a photo of a lynching. A photo-shopped dog's head in our bad-boy forum has nothing on the inflammatory nature of those two Peterson blog entries that were openly published on Patheos.
Lemmie wrote:
I'm not understanding your point here. Dr. Scratch is defining Mopologists on the basis of their writings, you are defining rhetoric here as "more inflammatory" than that, but then you are arguing for viewing another side of apologists, not seen in their writings. Wouldn't your argument hold for all writers, equally, that there is a side to them that is unseen? If the argument holds for all, it is irrelevant to use it in defense of only one group. So why keep bringing this issue up to defend one group only? All one can do is evaluate mopologist's positions on the basis of their mopologist writings, and Dr. Scratch does so with great aplomb.

pogi wrote:
...You are right, one point I have argued is that there is more to a person than their writings. In all fairness though, if you go back and read my posts I have been very fair to both sides in this regard, making the point that we are all human and are deeper than our words. I absolutely use that in defense of both groups....

That's my point, it's irrelevant if both sides are subject to it.
pogi wrote:
The second point that I have made, is that writings don't interpret themselves.... For example - I view the OP of this thread to be a huge misinterpretation of Peterson's words.
Yes, you have made your interpretation clear. Peterson is a master at using passive aggressive language, which means one can always make your argument, when looking at an individual post. I prefer Dr. Scratch's method of evaluating his blog post within the full context of his writings.
Quote:
P.S. Go visit the Telestial Forum version of this very thread :rolleyes: On second thought...no, don't!
So you want me to look at the forum where items are moved that are deemed inappropriate for this [Terrestrial] forum, in order to get an idea of what's posted here?! Now I'm really going to roll my eyes.

I'll cut you some slack on that because you're new, but I would suggest reading the descriptions and rules for the various forums before you start lumping all posters and posts into the same category here. Otherwise I might have to lump "you all" together and assume Warren Jeffs accurately represents your position. :lol:

[No offense to you, shulem, you are NOTHING like Peterson. I just used your photo-shop post location to make a point about relevance. I love you to death and I hope you know that. You excel at bringing out the humor and irony in your bad-boy posts--don't ever stop!!!]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fence Sitter, Majestic-12 [Bot], thechair and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group