DiscussMormonism.com

Tal Bachman wrote:Hi Pahoran

I've just started interviewing Wade Englund. Would you be willing to be interviewed, too? We could start right away if you want. You can also interview me if you want after we're done.

Just wondering,

Tal

To what end?

Regards,
Pahoran

So he can ask you vacuous unanswerable questions.

Ask him what ethical standards guide him, and where you may read about them.

P

Plutarch wrote:So he can ask you vacuous unanswerable questions.

Ask him what ethical standards guide him, and where you may read about them.

P

I thought the questions he asked Wade were thought-provoking and interesting. Apparently, you thought they were unanswerable and vacuous. Wade seems not to have had any trouble answering.

What do his ethical standards have to do with responding to an interview?

Pahoran, I am very impressed with how both Wade and Tal have been conducting themselves during their interview. You may want to read it.

Plutarch wrote:So he can ask you vacuous unanswerable questions.

Ask him what ethical standards guide him, and where you may read about them.

P

Plutarch, you're a self-righteous, narrow-minded prick. It's people like you that scare the hell out of me, because obviously if you ever lost your "faith", you would become a menace to society (after all, there would be nowhere to READ about how you're supposed to behave). Do you really need a book with fairy tales to convince you that killing, stealing, raping, cheating, etc. are bad? Do you really need the threat of eternal punishment and/or the prospect of eternal rewards in order for you to have the incentive to be a good person? Have you ever considered the possibility that people who don't believe God gave us a handbook for living (despite the fact that surely God must have been aware that such a handbook would inevitably be manipulated, changed, and misinterpreted by people) might want to live a good life simply because that's the type of life that brings them the most joy? Have you ever considered the possibility that such desires and attributes may have evolved, since societies whose members adhere to such standards are more likely to be successful?

Please, for the sake of humanity (and particularly the humanity that happens to interact with you on a regular basis), don't EVER even consider the possibility that Mormonism, or Christianity in general for that matter, is not true. You are clearly one of the (hopefully) few that absolutely need religion in order to avoid becoming a savage.

Trojan Tapir wrote:Please, for the sake of humanity (and particularly the humanity that happens to interact with you on a regular basis), don't EVER even consider the possibility that Mormonism, or Christianity in general for that matter, is not true. You are clearly one of the (hopefully) few that absolutely need religion in order to avoid becoming a savage.

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. He is just a plain asshole. He knows what people are saying when they say or write it. He doesn't need a book or references or whatever information he asks for.

The thread about about Paul Osborne brought Pahoran and Plutarch to mind. We can disagree 100% with with Paul's theology, call him on the carpet sometimes when he goes over the line, but at the end of the day, most can still like him. At the end of the day, when they go to bed (or even when they go to their ward meetings I'd bet), people like Pahoran or Plutarch are still unlikeable assholes....whether they were religious or not. They add nothing to the human experience.


Chris <><

christopher wrote:

Trojan Tapir wrote:Please, for the sake of humanity (and particularly the humanity that happens to interact with you on a regular basis), don't EVER even consider the possibility that Mormonism, or Christianity in general for that matter, is not true. You are clearly one of the (hopefully) few that absolutely need religion in order to avoid becoming a savage.

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. He is just a plain asshole. He knows what people are saying when they say or write it. He doesn't need a book or references or whatever information he asks for.

The thread about about Paul Osborne brought Pahoran and Plutarch to mind. We can disagree 100% with with Paul's theology, call him on the carpet sometimes when he goes over the line, but at the end of the day, most can still like him. At the end of the day, when they go to bed (or even when they go to their ward meetings I'd bet), people like Pahoran or Plutarch are still unlikeable assholes....whether they were religious or not. They add nothing to the human experience.

Chris <><

Why, thank you so much for your so very valuable opinion there, Chris. I'd like to tell you that I'm going to lose all sorts of sleep worrying if your magisterial judgement might actually be true, but I don't tell lies on the message boards.

I do have one question, though. That neat little <>< after your name: is that supposed to represent an alpha fish symbol?

If so, would you like us to judge your Christian walk based upon that spiteful bit of trash talk?

Or is it just possible that there might be more to you than that?

Regards,
Pahoran

Plutarch, you're a self-righteous, narrow-minded prick. It's people like you that scare the hell out of me, because obviously if you ever lost your "faith", you would become a menace to society (after all, there would be nowhere to READ about how you're supposed to behave).

He is just a plain asshole. He knows what people are saying when they say or write it. He doesn't need a book or references or whatever information he asks for.

Well, I certainly know my limitations and faults, to be sure.

I think my quest to deterimine Tal's ethical standards is really kind of simple. He is an atheist, at least so far as what I can tell. If so, exactly what standards guide him? It is my position that Judiac Christianity is the correct standard for the world, and if so, nothing in those standards prohibit polygamy or, for that matter, marrying a young girl in polygamy in the 19th century. Lex loci might prohibit it, as I have fully conceded. Pre-victorian standards of morality would discourage polygamy, as I have conceded.

But, when posters on this board label things as "right" and "wrong," but don't believe in the Bible, then where is one to turn for common ground?

P