Conflict between Mormon and Biblical teachings

@philokalia said
Well, you know, it is hard to dig up an old thread like that. Do you have a link to it? I can gladly reply there. But, generally speaking, if a thread has not been active for over a month, it is locked, right? Or would you like to repeat your argument?

I believe you blanked it out on purpose, so no. You also ducked out of conversations on human rights, virtue, morality, and others leaving a cloud of ignored replies and answers to your direct questions. I have no need to repeat my personal testimony about the meaning I find in my post-Christian life.

So, you would say that there is objective moral truth in the world, right, FMF?

Also, I am sorry if you think I dodged a lot of questions and did not discuss the topic back then very honestly.

That seems to be a common theme between us: we are often discussing whether or not the other is discussing something properly! We have real issues with engaging each other in text.

I'll do my best to engage the topic honestly.

Maybe this is a problem -- maybe, when we both post as we see fit, it isn't actually that helpful to each other or the readers.

@philokalia said
Oh, OK, I understand that you may not want to be put that much effort into discussing something like religion here, and so you do not want to bother to make many distinctions between religious sects, and in that end... It might make sense to point out that believing no revealed truth is in religion, they are all the same in this regard.

They are all the same in as far as they claim to be "revealed" religions. The idea that I don't think there are "distinctions" between them is a silly notion that you are projecting onto me.

What I am interested in discussing here with regard to religion is when and if the assertions that religionists make seem morally incoherent. I am also interested in how religiosity distorts the intellectual and interpersonal behaviour of its adherents.

If you want to discuss other aspects of religion then there are plenty of people here that might want to discuss them with you.

@philokalia said
So, you would say that there is objective moral truth in the world, right, FMF?

I think religionists convince themselves that their belief in supernatural causality and divine "revelation" makes them objective about moral matters, when, in fact, I think the exercise of our moral compasses is a profoundly subjective process.

We talked about this at length only a few weeks ago. You disappeared eventually, leaving attempts to engage you dangling in mid-air. Are you pretending we didn't discuss this exact thing?

There are, of course, objective truths about what laws, norms, values, traditions etc. exist that are based on or affect morality.

@philokalia said
Also, I am sorry if you think I dodged a lot of questions and did not discuss the topic back then very honestly.

You are what you post.

@philokalia said
I'll do my best to engage the topic honestly.

Well, I am not going to type out any stuff for you again. If it didn't suit you to engage honestly before, so be it.

@philokalia said
And maybe I read too far into your remarks when I point out that they are a bit flippant.

My comments are concise and clear. "Flippant" would be things like making snotty little "jokes" about your facial hair or about you suffering cognitive impairment or about prostitutes masturbating you behind a shopping mall in Jakarta. You have no credibility lecturing posters on flippancy.

@philokalia said
Maybe this is a problem -- maybe, when we both post as we see fit, it isn't actually that helpful to each other or the readers.

I am not interested in posting as you see fit. I have said so repeatedly.

@fmf said
They are all the same in as far as they claim to be "revealed" religions. The idea that I don't think there are "distinctions" between them is a silly notion that you are projecting onto me.

What I am interested in discussing here with regard to religion is when and if the assertions that religionists make seem morally incoherent. I am also interested in how religiosity distor ...[text shortened]... r aspects of religion then there are plenty of people here that might want to discuss them with you.

(I) Your point about distorting the intellectual and interpersonal behavior of its adherents is very interesting.

Do you have some conclusions on that for us?

This would appear to imply that the behavior of people who don't believe is not distorted in any way.

I'd never really make assertions like that because it seems over the top, right...

Like, what would be the normal behaviors that a person is expected to have without religion? It is hard to conceptualize that because we do not even think of people of having uniform, healthy behaviors that are absolutely universal....

But try to unpack that, if you would.

(II) Yeah, I do see plenty of people are ready to discuss religion in all sorts of ways all around the world.

I do not think that I am actually projecting on you, but rather just trying to discuss these topics with depth.

@fmf said
You are what you post.

But you're not.

You're a human being that lives out in the world -- you are an eternal soul and you are a body.

What you post is temporary and involved in the often non-serious context of it being an internet forum, right...

The things that you do when you step away from the forum are far more real and impactful than what you do when you are in the internet forum.

... Of course, if you are posting your deep thoughts here, that is an indication of who you are on some level, right? But then, I would advise anyone who is really putting effort into doing that to branch out beyond this and to try to commit them to a more permanent form.

I'd also tell everyone to avoid makign great investments in their internet personas.

This can never be who you are.

@philokalia said
[b]Your point about distorting the intellectual and interpersonal behavior of its adherents is very interesting.

Do you have some conclusions on that for us?

No.

@philokalia said
But you're not.

I am. So are you. I am of course talking about "Philokalia" and "FMF". The only persona you and I project are the ones we reveal here through our words and deeds. The traction from whatever might - or might not be - true about posters' "lives out in the world" is only in so far as them talking about it here in their words on the screen.

@philokalia said
What you post is temporary and involved in the often non-serious context of it being an internet forum, right...

It's all you have to offer, regardless of whether it is serious or non-serious. "FMF" has no RHP substance other than what is posted by that screen name.

@philokalia said
I'd also tell everyone to avoid makign great investments in their internet personas.

This can never be who you are.

"Investments"? All there is is a person's posting record. All there is is what words you put on the screen. In terms of a message board like RHP, all you are is what you post. A persona here is not an "investment"; a persona here is just the sum total of all the words they have typed.

@philokalia said
I do not think that I am actually projecting on you, but rather just trying to discuss these topics with depth.

You are projecting because you are seemingly holding the fact that I have my own interests - which do not coincide with yours - against me. That's your prerogative of course. But why not find someone who wants to discuss exactly what you want to discuss? You almost always bail out of the conversations I have tried to have with you.

There are plenty of people here who will no doubt indulge you [just as there are plenty who indulge me] and I am sure there are some that will agree with your notion that you are "deep" or talking in "depth".

If you carefully flatter the creepy and relatively weakminded people here, I am sure some of them will look upon you as not pretentious, not pseudy, and not lightweight.