bah, now I'm suspended too

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

Moksha said:
I had around 4000 posts. One thing that distinguished my posts from the Dude's was that he said intelligent stuff.

The mods feathers would be less likely to ruffle if someone would epoxy them properly into place. Till then, it will just be a matter of time for Sethbag.


Moksha, with all respect, I found some of your posts which were wrapped in humour, (but often profound and piercing in terms of getting to the heart of the matter, even if it was the futility of discussion a particular issue), to be some of the most intelligent on the board.

You know how Shakespeare used to use his 'fool' characters!! That's how I looked at your contributions.

Gushing over!!!

Mary
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

WHy me, You are just wrong on Sethbag. His posting style has stayed pretty constant in my opinion.
I agree with Dude. The moderating style has becoming a little more unusual...that's all.

Anyway, Seth (hopefully) will be back over there along with the Dude in the near future.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Actually, seth, it is called evolution. You are a changed man than when you first came to FAIR/MAD. You have become more bitter and angry in your posts about the LDS church. I call it hanging out too much with the wrong crowd. You are losing your objectivity. And you know this. Reading your posts these days, I can smell the bitter tranquil anger through my computer...something is changing your cyberpersonality. At times, at MAD, you would engage in discussion and at other times, the sour grapes would turn up in your other posts. You have become weighed in negativity.

Actually, Miss Taken is a lot closer to the mark than you'd think. I have at times been able to more effectively moderate my tone, but you can find very jaded posts going back to my beginning on FAIR last July or so. I'll link to one such thread below.

The fact is, I will freely admit that I moderated my tone somewhat on FAIR/MAD from my earliest posts in order to be less "in your face" with people. But that hasn't meant I was moderate in my beliefs. I've seen the mental gymnastics, the "playing semantics" to explain away and excuse damning evidence which serves to demonstrate how uninspired by God this whole church is, and so forth, right from the beginning. I've only become more jaded since then. Repeated exposure to mind-boggling feats of mental ducking and weaving to avoid the unpleasant reality that the church is simply a man-madeinstitution like every other church out there, has really worn on me.

There's only so much excusing of Joseph Smith's exploitation of religious authority to obtain sexual relationships with a great many women, most often behind his own wife's back, and seeing people then sing Praise to the Man who Communed With Jehova, before I begin to despair at the human condition. There's only so many times the Book of Abraham arguments can be rehashed and still see people say well, you know, maybe there's more parchment that was lost, or maybe the BoB simply serves as a mnemonic device pointing to the actual Book of Abraham, or whatever. Come on, anyone else in the entire world would see the apologetic arguments and LAUGH. They are ridiculous. But they aren't ridiculous to someone who depends on them to keep their faith "safe".

And I'm getting sick of Smac's obsession with homosexuals and their "agenda". Give me a fscking break! Homosexuals are like what, 3% of our population? Why can't we just leave these people the hell alone? I utterly and totally reject the paranoid "us vs. them" mentality that promotes the idea that the gays are out there to convert all the heteros to gayness. It's unbelievable. And you know what? Some of the TBMs on that board keep linking to utter trash from World Net Daily or whatever other paranoid Christian Right agenda rags, breathlessly exclaiming that some student group at some stupid school somewhere tried to teach the incoming freshman not to hate their gay co-students, and OMG the Sky is Falling, this is surely one of the Signs of the Times. Give me a freaking break. It absolutely blows my mind that people can buy into the Christian Right's siege mentality as much as they do, and put any faith or credence in such "news" sources.

Anyhow, Why Me, for your reading pleasure, read this example of my earlier posts on MAD, during what you might have considered my more polite and "less bitter" era.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1207992421
From the post above:
I will point out, however, that James Talmage, Henry Eyring, and others never were saddled with the huge number of "inspired" opinions they subsequently had to retract that Bruce R. McConkie produced.

Breed'em Young and Parley P. Pratt used to argue points of doctrine (Adam-God amongst them) via editorials in the Deseret News.

Ah, for the good old days, when Mormon General Authorities used to have and express opinions. Everyone is so bland these days, not willing to say anything about anything, and not willing to stand by the utterances of their predecessors either. Where is all this much-ballyhooed "revealed truth" these days? Did "revealed truth" go the way of Adam-God, Blood Atonement, and our insupportable former racial prejudices against the accursed "Darkies"?

As you know I have enjoyed my dialogues with you. Hopefully, the old seth will return, if not, you are heading for RFM heaven. Balance is the key to life on LDS sponsored boards.

You'll see more moderately-toned posts by me. I've been active in this church for all but the last year or so in this church, and I still go to church, at least sacrament meeting, almost every Sunday, because my wife wants me to. I'm used to interacting with Mormons, and I can find myself speaking comfortably on some topics with TBMs. As far as going to RFM goes, dude, you don't know this, but I read and posted at RFM before I ever registered or posted at FAIR/MAD. I didn't post a lot, but I did post, and read for a while. I actually can't take too much of RFM, and only go there every few weeks now just to see if there's anything up. There are a lot of people on RFM who are so against the church that they will believe almost anything that's said against it. I'm not like that. I believe the church isn't true, that Joseph Smith was a conman and a sexual exploiter of women by abusing the religious authority they granted him, that he made up the Book of Abraham and a lot of other things that Mormons saddle themselves with mentally. However, I draw the line at things against the church that I think are factually supportable, and I'm only interested in a rational and logical approach to it, not the irrational approach I've seen from some RFMers. I don't want to criticize them too much. It is what it is over there. It just can't hold my attention, and never will, for very long. But yeah, I know there are a lot of people over there who feel angry because they've been fooled and lied to their whole lives about the church. Well, maybe not "lied" to, since the church members and leadership, for the most part, actually do believe what they're saying. But what they're saying is simply not true, and when some people realize they've dedicated years and years of their lives, and thousands and thousands of their dollars, to something that's just as myth-based and fantasy based as the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Roman Catholic Church, or the Hare Krishnas, or whatever, they get angry and bitter, and some of them will act that out on RFM. You know what? It's not my place to judge them. Because they have been mentally conditioned by sincere but mistaken and misguided people into doing and believing things that are ultimately untrue.

Why Me, I honestly cannot understand this Pascal's Wager you are living out on these boards. I can only conclude that you believe it will avail you somehow in the end, if the LDS church is in fact true. Well, I don't believe it will, and I'm willing to face up to that, take the bull by the horns, and admit to myself, privately and publicly, that the church I belong to, and to which I have devoted so much in the past, and which my family members are devoting so much to all around me in my family, every week, month after month, year after year, is simply not true. It's man-made, an invention of Joseph Smith and his early co-religionists, evolved over time through Brigham Young and a lot of subsequent leaders, down to this time. But it's still an invention of the mind of man, and not Truth, Revealed Religion from God, or any of that.
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Sethbag,

For what it's worth, I certainly don't see any increasing bitterness. But I totally agree with you: the rationalization of Joseph Smith's behavior is indeed enough to make one despair at the state of humanity.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Sethbag, I can understand where you're coming from. Speaking personally, as someone who has examined their faith repeatedly over the years, especially from a non-Christian perspective, I know just how debilitating presuppositional apologetics can be when you look at them from the other perspective, and when presuppositional apologetics are all there is.

whyme, Sethbag isn't growing less objective, he is growing more objective. He is moving from a presuppositional position within which any justification and rationalisation of challenges to his faith can be made, and he views his faith only from the perspective of a believer, to an objective position within which these justifications and rationalisations cannot be made, because he is viewing his faith from the perspective of an unbeliever.

It is objective to be able to view one's faith from both sides. That is what Sethbag is doing. As a result, he may finally make a decision on which one is more convincing. It will be an informed decision.

As a Christian, and one who writes apologetic material (in my 'spare' time), I appreciate what objectivity really is. I know how easy it is to write apologetic material for a fellow Christian, within a presuppositional perspective which is biased towards my faith. I also know how hard it is to write apologetic material for a non-Christian, within a perspective which is at best not biased towards my faith, and at worst biased against it.

But unless I'm capable of looking at both perspectives, and prepared to write material for each, I'm not really being objective. I believe there is a place for presuppositional apologetics, but I also believe that a Christian's faith is strengthened by examining it from the other perspective.

I believe that apologetics written for non-Christians, outside the presuppositional perspective, are more effective at converting non-Christians, and more effective at promoting faith among Christians.

The problem is that you, whyme, approach Mormon apologetics within the presuppositionalist perspective, and then cannot appreciate why non-believers remain unconvinced, and once faithful Mormons fall away.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Post by _why me »

Great Cthulhu wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
wenglund wrote:If you are refering to me providing links, I can do that if necessary (though I can't imagine why it would be. I am quite certain that Beastie is aware of what was written on those threads because she was often an active participant, and even interacted with me there.)


Beastie appears to think that it is necessary. I sympathize with her viewpoint.


ROFL! No kidding. That's gotta be the wussiest picture of Joseph Smith ever. Not appropriate at all for a humanist marxist -- at the very least Why Me needs facial hair. I say we start a new thread to help Why Me find a better avatar. Eh?

A catholic poster at MAD sent me a nice picture of Joseph Smith dressed as the pope. I really liked that one but unfortunately I don't know how to use my computer thingys. I would love to have Joseph Smith as pope at MAD or here. But I would think that people would find me anti church and I am not. But it does tend to cover my catholic and Mormon background very well. The catholic poster wanted me to use but...I think that I have it stored somewhere in my computer.
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

whyme, if you want a little image editing work done, you can PM me. I'll give you my email address, and you can email me images and your instructions.

I can't claim brilliance, but I did manage to turn this:

Image

...into this:

Image
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Post by _why me »

Miss Taken wrote:WHy me, You are just wrong on Sethbag. His posting style has stayed pretty constant in my opinion.
I agree with Dude. The moderating style has becoming a little more unusual...that's all.

Anyway, Seth (hopefully) will be back over there along with the Dude in the near future.

I have known from my own history with seth, that he can be polite and respectful. I have had dialogue with him on the MAD board and I have had some disagreements also. But the disrespectful posts and the somewhat bitter tone to his posts is unmistakable. And of course, I can understand him since he was an active member who became disillusioned. I have seen it happen on other sites with people in seth's shoes. But such an attitude will get someone banned eventually at MAD.

I have followed your posts on the critic board (that will remain nameless) for a very long time and you were one of the reasons that I signed up to that critic board. You write in an objective, non-hostile style. More critics need to be like you in attitude and posts. Hopefully, the critics can learn from you just how to be respectful and leave the sourgrapes in the vineyard.
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Post by _why me »

Sethbag wrote:
The fact is, I will freely admit that I moderated my tone somewhat on FAIR/MAD from my earliest posts in order to be less "in your face" with people. But that hasn't meant I was moderate in my beliefs. I've seen the mental gymnastics, the "playing semantics" to explain away and excuse damning evidence which serves to demonstrate how uninspired by God this whole church is, and so forth, right from the beginning. I've only become more jaded since then. Repeated exposure to mind-boggling feats of mental ducking and weaving to avoid the unpleasant reality that the church is simply a man-madeinstitution like every other church out there, has really worn on me.

And this was my point and this is what I noticed. I noticed tone and it is the tone that matters at MAD for the most part. You are also somewhat different here then at MAD. I saw a dual personality. But I don't think that you were alone in this dual personality. I have noticed other critics take on this personae too. I suppose that it goes with the turf. One can not hide the inner anger or frustration for too long...it all comes out in the end.
_marg

sethbag

Post by _marg »

Sethbag, what country are you from? Were you raised by parents very religous? both Mormon? What influences do you think encouraged you to critically think... mainly from parents, from school, or no one in particular?
Post Reply