Three Powerful Books

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Dr Exiled »

honorentheos wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:50 pm
Anyone looking for a laugh should jump to minute 16:30 of the Holland talk. Wow is that guy disingenuous or lacking in self-awareness. I'm sure he thought in 2015 that his interfaith audience would be slightly shamed by it - and the Mormon members feel puffed up about the relative poverty of they lay leadership who gave up the world and wealth to serve like apostles of old - though no one who knew the church would have been able to avoid a whiplash-inducing eye roll. In 2020, I doubt even Holland would dare say that in public.
Dodo, if you read this, I think even the slowest among us can see the blatant hypocrisy in your implying that cojcolds isn't overly concerned with money or politics, back then in 2015 and especially now. However, I guess accusing others of doing exactly what you, yourself do, works to a certain degree, and so I don't fault you for trying. It's just in this case ..... it makes you ..... well ...... look like a dodo.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6449
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by 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.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Polygamy-Porter
the very elect
Posts: 8091
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Polygamy-Porter »

MG,

Have you tried the newest flavors of Snapple iced tea??
New name: Boaz
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by 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
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by mentalgymnast »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:55 pm
mentalgymnast wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:37 pm


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
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by mentalgymnast »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:10 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:09 pm
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.
honorentheos wrote: 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.
honorentheos wrote: 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.
honorentheos wrote: 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.
honorentheos wrote: 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.
honorentheos wrote: 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.
honorentheos wrote: 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.
honorentheos wrote: ...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?
honorentheos wrote: 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

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by 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
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by mentalgymnast »

Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:14 pm
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.
Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:14 pm
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.
Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:14 pm
...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
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by mentalgymnast »

Polygamy-Porter wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:50 pm
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

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10419
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Lemmie »

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.
Last edited by Lemmie on Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by 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?

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 11037
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by honorentheos »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:10 pm
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.
A couple of problematic issues here.

First, you compare religious institutions with "secularists" in the context of legal rights. These are not comparable categories when dealing with concepts like rights. Secularists are not institutionalized but must by default refer to individuals with some common basis of belief. You can't write a letter to "the secularists" and expect to receive a response. It's also bogus to put a halo over legal rights when most issues involving religions complaining about rights involve civil rights. Institutions and individuals have very different claims when it comes to rights.

This in turn affects the meaning of your claim that "religious institutions have the right to assert themselves into the legal process". There is reasonable Supreme Court case precedent that paints clear boundaries on individual religious freedom that preempts the claim religious beliefs override the law. As an individual, you don't get to claim a murder was ok because you were practicing blood atonement necessary for someone to be saved even though it was clearly taught by early church leadership. Once established, the law has to be the law for everyone for there to be a just society. Individuals and institutions are certainly free to weigh in on the debate over the law but that comes with provisions for each category.

What seems to occur with your thinking is the idea religion represents a higher law above the law of the land. You believe, as is your right, this law came from God and therefore applies to everyone. Ok. This idea is held by people with views of what is "gods law" that contradict your own. People believe God has decreed a host of contradictory rules and definitions for what people ought to do. By necessity you are simply asserting you belief should be privileged over that of others and made the law of the land. Not by debate over the merits of the rule itself but by divine right of your belief to a unique status over that of others. Simply asserting an idea is espoused by your God isn't engaging in civic debate. It's attempting to impose a theocratic tyranny over others who do not share your beliefs.
honorentheos wrote: 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.
That's cheap of you. I sincerely thought if we were engaging in discussion on certain topics the result might stray a bit but still be related to the topic. According to this, it was never about the OP or other topics that arose. In your mind, it was always about your Manichean worldview? Don't you see why that's messed up? You aren't living honestly or being a genuine person if the above is true.
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.
No they didn't, or at least not the way you are portraying it. This is Bill O'Reilly/Glen Beck perversions of history. I guarantee if you spent time reading the writings directly of Madison, Franklin, Jefferson and the like you will find both varied views on this topic and a general belief in fundamental ideals that aren't religious in the sense we are speaking of religion in this thread.

You can start here:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Th ... ead_button
Last edited by honorentheos on Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 11037
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by honorentheos »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:55 pm
Yeah, more people like Honor is an existential threat. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well, he may be right about that. :lol:
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9798
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Gadianton »

MG forgets that most on this board were LDS for a great portion of their lives, firmly rooted in faith with all kinds of biases and information control from their upbringing. The Church as "true" had a huge head start in the competition of ideas.

"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 statement would be moronic even if Honor had been born and raised a secular humanist, but since he was born and raised Mormon, it goes from being naïve and dumb observation by a primitive thinker, to a nonsensical one. Lemmie, Honor, Dr. Moore, myself, Philo, Exiled; all in this thread began this life fully indoctrinated and biased toward the LDS church being true.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Dr Exiled »

Gadianton wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:54 pm
MG forgets that most on this board were LDS for a great portion of their lives, firmly rooted in faith with all kinds of biases and information control from their upbringing. The Church as "true" had a huge head start in the competition of ideas.

"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 statement would be moronic even if Honor had been born and raised a secular humanist, but since he was born and raised Mormon, it goes from being naïve and dumb observation by a primitive thinker, to a nonsensical one. Lemmie, Honor, Dr. Moore, myself, Philo, Exiled; all in this thread began this life fully indoctrinated and biased toward the LDS church being true.
This is so true. I grew up surrounded by G.A.'s, men I worshiped. I loved playing with the G.A.'s kids in the ward and talking to their wives. They were our heroes. It was tough to realize that they are mere mortals, that they are probably making ____ up.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 3520
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Morley »

I’m still laughing that someone really might feel threatened by humanism. I thought that was long dead as a boogeymen. Even *gasp* the secular variety.

I thought we were more sophisticated than that.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10095
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Res Ipsa »

mentalgymnast wrote:
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
I’m not the one dividing people into friends and enemies. That’s all you. I don’t identify as a secular humanist — that’s you cramming me into a box so that you can can have that enemy you so deeply crave. Your “nuance” is pure affectation. Deep down, you’re nuanced as a sledgehammer.

I don’t need to make up enemies. I don’t need someone to fear and hate. Apparently, you can’t be a happy person without an enemy to hate.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 33723
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Jersey Girl »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:46 pm
I guess we’re all subject to one form of tribal thinking or another, aren’t we?
No.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6449
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Philo Sofee »

Morley wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 11:31 pm
I’m still laughing that someone really might feel threatened by humanism. I thought that was long dead as a boogeymen. Even *gasp* the secular variety.

I thought we were more sophisticated than that.
Well considering we are dealing with (cough) Mormonism and the way it raises its kids to be tattle tails at their college campuses, this should be no surprise.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6449
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Philo Sofee »

Res Ipsa
I’m not the one dividing people into friends and enemies. That’s all you. I don’t identify as a secular humanist — that’s you cramming me into a box so that you can can have that enemy you so deeply crave. Your “nuance” is pure affectation. Deep down, you’re nuanced as a sledgehammer.

I don’t need to make up enemies. I don’t need someone to fear and hate. Apparently, you can’t be a happy person without an enemy to hate.
A deeply profound point. The fear and paranoia in so much religion, even unnecessarily has led to warped thinking and skewed logic for millenia, which skewing is anchored in their already paranoid and skewed scripture which they imagine is free from taint and problem when it comes to visceral reality. MG is so biased he cannot even see how badly skewed his own world view is... And hence it must needs be that there is an opposition (enemy) in all things in his little mind, or else there is no reality. God has devil, Dr. Peterson has Scratch, Midlgey has Moksha, so MG needs to be a good Mormon and get an enemy. That's where secular humanists come in. Hey, if they are evil to an apostle then MG feels perfectly justified in accepting they are evil in general. Who is he to question an apostle? An apostle of the Holy Jesus Christ lord of the universe?! When an apostle opines, MG snaps to all ears, attention, and belief.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6449
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Three Powerful Books

Post by Philo Sofee »

MG
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.
Ah yes, the Mormon judgment of the world from a bias free perspective. Nothing like first having the bias of their apostasy, and only then saying Mormons are bias free as well as correct because all other churches are de facto wrong because, forsooth, that's what Joseph Smith was told! What MG has utterly failed to grasp is that it was as an LDS apologist that I came to grasp that the truth claims are wrong. I found that out from within the religion, not as an outside secular humanist. My eyes were opened to the astonishing and very uncomfortable fact that my own bias was wrong. I judged everything about the world from within that invisible bias, namely Mormon truth, just like MG does. And I could not see it. From within, ones bias is invisible. It's what makes it so amusing when the self-righteous perverts of religion start trying to shame the world for its sins while dripping with the blood of their own sins. They are so perverted in their bias they imagine that bright red blood will be used to wash their own garments snow white! Ponder how truly impossibly silly that is, and you begin to see why their judgment and knowledge against the world is harmless, so long as we all uphold the complete separation of church and state. If they ever get secular power, they could even make us inject Clorox into our veins in order to clean out diseases in the body.......
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

Post Reply