Why they're MAD

[_bcspace]

Does atheism deserve respect?

Of course! After all, atheism IS a religion ;)

If atheism is a religion, then infertility must be parenthood, right?

[_Sam Harris]

And I've just started reading Conversations With God, and that is one of the things that the author claims God said, that people place another human above them as a spiritual leader, to keep from having to deal with the responsiblity of hearing and interpreting God's word for themselves. Intrigues me, that does.

I just feel compelled to mention that the author of Conversations With God has admitted that he made it all up, but that doesn't mean the book doesn't have good insights.

Wow, did he? That just goes to show you how creative the human mind can be... that's wild. :-)

[_beastie]

Interesting beastie, as I tend to think of revelation as quite unambiguous (though there might be missing details or subjects not touched upon). Can you give a more explicit example as I don't think I quite understand? Perhaps you should start a thread called 'The ambiguity of revelation'.

Is the principle taught in Jeremiah 18:1-10 (that prophecy is conditional) part of this ambiguity you speak of?

Well, ask and ye shall receive. In fact, I knew you were going to ask this last year. ;)

Here's the link to the FAIR thread I started on that very topic:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=14774

If you're interested enough after you read it to continue the conversation, just start a thread. I've talked about it so much I'm not sure I can think of anything else to say. In fact, this is just one of several threads on the topic I've participated on.

[_harmony]

And I've just started reading Conversations With God, and that is one of the things that the author claims God said, that people place another human above them as a spiritual leader, to keep from having to deal with the responsiblity of hearing and interpreting God's word for themselves. Intrigues me, that does.

I just feel compelled to mention that the author of Conversations With God has admitted that he made it all up, but that doesn't mean the book doesn't have good insights.

Wow, did he? That just goes to show you how creative the human mind can be... that's wild. :-)

Makes me wonder if Joseph might have had a similiar experience, had he lived that long.

[_moksha]

I have often wondered how some can go to church on Sunday, listen to the lessons and talks and then act in such an opposite manner on the boards. I know some rationalize their behavior by saying they are defending the church. However, I see no reason why some feel they must humiliate, ridicule and denigrate their opponent in order to defend the church.

Perhaps this is a personality disorder manifestation that Wade can help those so afflicted address on his proposed therapy board.

[_bcspace]

Does atheism deserve respect?

Of course! After all, atheism IS a religion ;)

If atheism is a religion, then infertility must be parenthood, right?

I certainly didn't say it was though the comment is made to look like I did. Inadvertent?

Atheism fits several of the listed definitions in the dictionary for 'religion'.

[Gadianton]

Wade, that is utter baloney. For one thing, if I were incapable of having reasonable discussions with believers, the former mods at Z would never have asked me to be a moderator in the first place. And it wasn't the first time a mixed moderator group asked me to help moderate a LDS-exLDS board - (except the first time I had enough sense to refuse -moderating is a horrible job, in my opinion) Or perhaps you are confusing coming to an agreement with having reasonable discussions.

Or given the extraordinarily small number of pleasant "critics" you were able to name, perhaps you confuse obsequious pandering with having a "pleasant and productive discussions." I'm not going to patronize believers by trying to massage their egos to cushion my criticisms of particular claims.

Or perhaps your perception of my interactions with believers is tainted for another reason. You, for example, always seem to assume psychological disturbances on the part of exbelievers - in fact, that is your modus operandus. There is very little difference between constantly assuming psychological disturbances on the part of exbelievers and taking personal insult at all but the most obsequious panderers. The impulse - to create a distraction from dealing with the challenge - whether to create a distraction by convincing yourself the challenger is malicious, mean, and attacking you, or that the challenger is psychologically disturbed - has a common origin.

But, all that aside, it's obvious that you believe criticisms of your faith constitute a personal attack. In my perception, that makes you an example of a True Believer whose sense of self is unhealthily enmeshed with an external system.

Of course there are certain believers I have a contentious history with, and will be abrupt with them. But that is due to our history, and their tendency to attack. Pahoran is a perfect example of that - from the first time I posted on Z he attacked me. As he does almost every critic.

But you're free, of course, to tell me that the problem is all me. I'm quite certain that you believe that to be true. We just disagree on the probable reasons you believe that is true.

I am sorry. I must not be communicating effectively. My intent wasn't to blame you or anyone else. Certainly, I don't think that the "problem" is all with you. Nor did I wish to make you feel defensive or attacked (not that you necessarily felt that way in this instance).

It is just that I saw you struggling with some internal issues (frustration in not being able to reasonably discuss things with certain LDS and hurt by certain insulting reactions from LDS), which you seem to attribute exclusively to external causes (i.e. 'TBMs"), and I was moved by compassion to offer some help. I thought you might find it benefitial for YOU to consider the possibility that there may possibly have been some internal causation for your internal issues, and at the very least find internal solutions for those internal issues--solution that may not necessitate something as radical as severing relationships.

I am convinced that one can have valued, meaningful, and constructive conversations even with people who take things personally.

Of course, I am not exactly an expert or a stellar example of such things. However, my experience on this board over the last several months, has taugt me some things that I think others may find useful. Granted, there are still some major trust issue--and that is okay. But, I believe I have been successful in smoothing out at least some relationships, and at the very least, I am no longer negatively affected internally by the way some interact with me here.

For what it is worth, I have learned that if I don't want others to take what I say too personally, I need to not only take more care in how I phrase things, but also not take things personally myself.

Also, I have found it more condusive to approach discussions with an aire of warmth and respect and balance, with constructive intents, reasonable expectations, and a relaxed and patient attitude; rather than with a steely-cold, head-strong, and unyielding demeanor, with
the intent of addressing the chip on my shoulder, or to discriminatly criticize, in an impatient and overly demanding way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

Wade, you are reading way too much into what I posted about my therapist, and you are assigning extremes where they don't exist.

Perhaps you are right. However, my intent was simply to add greater context to the discussion by pointing out that certain therapeutic practices and considerations are based upon a general treatment philosophy, and that certain treatment philosophies may engender therapeutic practices and considerations which may not be in the patient's best interest, and may even prove counterproductive.

I said that many therapists do not believe that devotion to a controlling religion is a contributor to good mental health. You turn that into a treatment philosophy of permissiveness and guiltlessness -- your agenda being to demonize anything that can be perceived as a criticism of your beliefs.

I understand that is your perception of me, even in spite of my carefully pointing out that I was speaking to general PRINCIPLES (which apply across the board), and not specifically about what your therapist said regarding the Church. Your therapist could have mentioned the public school system or a variety of other organizations, groups, or people, as a cause of your depression, and I would have said the same thing.

I mentioned my own therapy in this thread as a comment to the over-identification Mormons have with their religion, not to debate CBT with you, but it's not really a disrailment because you are perfectly manifesting exactly what Beastie is talking about in this thread. I hope this helps.

In a way it does. It lets me know that you and your therapst believe your depression was somehow a function of "over-identification Mormons have with their religion" (and this even given that you were no longer a Mormon), and that "Mormonism could be blamed" for it. In other words, you and your therapist think YOU were depressed not because of your own distorted way in which YOU had come to view YOURSELf in relation to Mormonism, but because Mormonism somehow caused YOU, as an ex-Mormon, to supposedly still over-identify with Mormonism. And, while I strenuously disagree with your therapist on PRINCIPLE, I hope you were able to resolve your depression--because that really is what matters to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

In a way it does. It lets me know that you and your therapst believe your depression was somehow a function of "over-identification Mormons have with their religion" (and this even given that you were no longer a Mormon), and that "Mormonism could be blamed" for it. In other words, you and your therapist think YOU were depressed not because of your own distorted way in which YOU had come to view YOURSELf in relation to Mormonism, but because Mormonism somehow caused YOU, as an ex-Mormon, to supposedly still over-identify with Mormonism. And, while I strenuously disagree with your therapist on PRINCIPLE, I hope you were able to resolve your depression--because that really is what matters to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, Wade, what you think you "know" is way off base in every respect. I don't know how you could have gotten it more wrong if you tried. Please give it up.

[_harmony]

In a way it does. It lets me know that you and your therapst believe your depression was somehow a function of "over-identification Mormons have with their religion" (and this even given that you were no longer a Mormon), and that "Mormonism could be blamed" for it. In other words, you and your therapist think YOU were depressed not because of your own distorted way in which YOU had come to view YOURSELf in relation to Mormonism, but because Mormonism somehow caused YOU, as an ex-Mormon, to supposedly still over-identify with Mormonism. And, while I strenuously disagree with your therapist on PRINCIPLE, I hope you were able to resolve your depression--because that really is what matters to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, Wade, what you think you "know" is way off base in every respect. I don't know how you could have gotten it more wrong if you tried. Please give it up.

And that is why on-line therapy of the sort that Wade proposes is not only not going to work, but is likely to be counterproductive. Because it's entirely too easy to get it entirely wrong.