You guys are still at it! (why am I not surprised?)

[drumdude]

Wasn't monotheism and a belief in one God a step in the right direction from believing in many gods, Zeus, etc.?

I think that’s as subjective and arbitrary as thinking Pepsi was a step in the right direction after Coke.

As Hitchens used to say, “many Gods, 3 Gods, 1 God… we’re getting nearer the true number all the time.”

[Gadianton]

That's certainly the way a stage 2 mythic literalist would see it, "by golly get rid of everyone else's God and keep only mine! The one true God!"

[MG 2.0]

That's certainly the way a stage 2 mythic literalist would see it, "by golly get rid of everyone else's God and keep only mine! The one true God!"

The concern I've had for a long time now is the problem with getting rid of all the gods. Obviously if you get rid of them all you may be throwing out the one true God out with the bathwater, so to speak.

That would be a big deal. And awfully unfortunate for the poor unsuspecting doubter who is listening.

The problem I've seen with the critics is the almost cavalier way they approach this. Yep, been there done that they say.

I'm sure that there may be a few that have put due diligence into it, but it's really hard to parse/tease out. I sure wouldn't want to go with the word of any critic on a backwater board such as this.

Don't take that as a criticism of any one person. It simply is what it is. A promoter of 'no god' can still be an awesome lover, dad, husband, and pickleball player.

If you were to place yourself on Fowlers stages of faith where would you put yourself gadianton and drumdude? Would you then take issue with anyone who doesn't really know you to 'downgrade' your own assessment?

I'm guessing gadianton might put himself at a 7+ having moved beyond god belief. But here's a question: did you ever hang out in stage four through six?

I'd say I'm a 4-5.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

Silly. Dumb, in fact.

Rocks in a hat. Disappeared golden plates. Polygamy on a grand scale. Dumb on an astronomical scale. Contrast that with 99% of the world having no clue what you are talking about and you really look like the epitome of that village guy.

[Gadianton]

The concern I've had for a long time now is the problem with getting rid of all the gods. Obviously if you get rid of them all you may be throwing out the one true God out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Right, which is a totally stage 2 way of looking at it. the literalist, "one true God" ultimate authority -- the one of many vending machines that actually produces the Coke. "don't throw away all those rocks because the magic one might be in that pile!" You speak fluent mystic literalism.

If you were to place yourself on Fowlers stages of faith where would you put yourself gadianton and drumdude? Would you then take issue with anyone who doesn't really know you to 'downgrade' your own assessment?

I don't buy into it, MG, so it's hard to grade myself. Piaget's stages of development is obviously descriptive as should any psychology model be, like Fowlers. But the way you use it, and everyone else I've seen use it does exactly what you do and Fowler probably did too, is prescriptive. You're using it as a measure for enlightenment, which it shouldn't be. It's a model that describes how a person processes information at different ages.

It's exactly as interesting for a person to reach stage 4 of Piaget's as it is for a person to reach age 12. Three-year-olds, 12-year-olds, and 40-year-olds process the world differently. There is no guarantee that the 40-year-old's version of the world is more accurate. For all we know, God could be a man in the sky like Zeus. I don't believe in God or have "faith" but I think that could be worked around and the model could be used as a general measure for how people process religious information.

But here's the thing, MG, If I thought I were a 7 and somebody on this board begged to differ with me, I know that it would be totally "stage 2" to get offended and argue the point. I'd figure a stage 7 needs to be a good listener and not take it personally, and so I'd try to be cordial about it and seriously consider the other person's view about me. But you see the problem here right? As a measure of enlightenment, I can try to present myself and couch my perspectives in a way consistent with a 7. But that doesn't really mean I'm a 7. It would take qualified psychologists to observe my behavior and test me; they'd have to filter out the noise that naturally comes with the fact that I've memorized the scale. The same goes for you.

[malkie]

Remember a few comments ago that MG said he learned as much from what people didn't say as from what they said?

viewtopic.php?p=2888269#p2888269

Lots of board members (including me) didn't say anything in this thread, but we also apparently contributed to the thread.

You know that's not what I meant. You've got to be more astute than that, malkie.

Regards,
MG

Never let it be said that MG lacks a sense of humour. Or of the ridiculous. Or of the idea of playing with language to see where it takes us. Or of reductio ad absurdum. Or ...

[MG 2.0]

The concern I've had for a long time now is the problem with getting rid of all the gods. Obviously if you get rid of them all you may be throwing out the one true God out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Right, which is a totally stage 2 way of looking at it. the literalist, "one true God" ultimate authority -- the one of many vending machines that actually produces the Coke. "don't throw away all those rocks because the magic one might be in that pile!" You speak fluent mystic literalism.

If you were to place yourself on Fowlers stages of faith where would you put yourself gadianton and drumdude? Would you then take issue with anyone who doesn't really know you to 'downgrade' your own assessment?

I don't buy into it, MG, so it's hard to grade myself. Piaget's stages of development is obviously descriptive as should any psychology model be, like Fowlers. But the way you use it, and everyone else I've seen use it does exactly what you do and Fowler probably did too, is prescriptive. You're using it as a measure for enlightenment, which it shouldn't be. It's a model that describes how a person processes information at different ages.

It's exactly as interesting for a person to reach stage 4 of Piaget's as it is for a person to reach age 12. Three-year-olds, 12-year-olds, and 40-year-olds process the world differently. There is no guarantee that the 40-year-old's version of the world is more accurate. For all we know, God could be a man in the sky like Zeus. I don't believe in God or have "faith" but I think that could be worked around and the model could be used as a general measure for how people process religious information.

But here's the thing, MG, If I thought I were a 7 and somebody on this board begged to differ with me, I know that it would be totally "stage 2" to get offended and argue the point. I'd figure a stage 7 needs to be a good listener and not take it personally, and so I'd try to be cordial about it and seriously consider the other person's view about me. But you see the problem here right? As a measure of enlightenment, I can try to present myself and couch my perspectives in a way consistent with a 7. But that doesn't really mean I'm a 7. It would take qualified psychologists to observe my behavior and test me; they'd have to filter out the noise that naturally comes with the fact that I've memorized the scale. The same goes for you.

Houdini.

Chalking it up to "mysticism". Who would have thought?

Master escape artist.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You know that's not what I meant. You've got to be more astute than that, malkie.

Regards,
MG

Never let it be said that MG lacks a sense of humour. Or of the ridiculous. Or of the idea of playing with language to see where it takes us. Or of reductio ad absurdum. Or ...

...something else?

Regards.
MG

[MG 2.0]

Silly. Dumb, in fact.

Rocks in a hat. Disappeared golden plates. Polygamy on a grand scale. Dumb on an astronomical scale. Contrast that with 99% of the world having no clue what you are talking about...

Does that matter? That is...that "Rocks in a hat. Disappeared golden plates. Polygamy on a grand scale."...are not known of and/or about by a majority of the world's population? Section 76 comes to mind.

Book of Mormon also...other nations being given, what??

Not everyone needs to know. Logic would dictate that they don't. The world doesn't work that way.

Don't underestimate God.

Out of small things...

...you really look like the epitome of that village guy.

It can look that way from a distance.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I thought this was interesting…

A 2014 study found that people with higher levels of sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism were more likely to engage in online trolling behaviour, with sadism being the strongest predictor.

And this

The Dark Tetrad, also known as the Dark Quad, is a set of interrelated negative personality features: narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism.

It’s an interesting insight.

It explains how someone can preach “Step outside and breathe.<snip>. Serve a neighbor. Take a drive. Read a good book. Have a real life conversation. Get off the dang keyboard!” whilst practicing the opposite.

I would normally fear for the spouse of someone with a Dark Tetrad Personality, and maybe we should in this specific case...but hopefully our resident DTP comes here to try and exert his macho and his spouse is spared the game playing. It's quite sad really, when you think about it. I'm guessing he's relatively puny in real life and feels insignificant - passed over for serious Church callings, feels he didn't amount to what he deserved to in his career, etc. He comes here to try and boost his own ego by putting others down. That's certainly been the pattern for 25 years. That he's here so often suggests it's not working. Actually, that’s a bit unfair, his complex personality disorder means, to all intents and purposes, he simply cannot help himself.