Faith Oriented Thread for Believers of God or a Higher Power

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Canucklehead, I look forward to both your's and Blixa's thoughts.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Blixa

Post by _Gazelam »

There are bits of Mormon history I find fascinating and not all of it is "negative" as you know from my earlier post on "heroes of the mountain meadows massacre" (by the way that was an incomplete list, I may write up a better version sometime soon). As much as I may truly despise some of the historical leaders of ldsism, I do find the lives, sacrifices and sincerity of members to be a very moving thing (and something which usually leads me to despise the leaders even more...). Maybe I can post a bit about those history bits at some point, too...


Just to let you know, I've printed off that list and shared it with a number of people. That is cherished information to me, and a great insight into the time period and event. Thank you for sharing that.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Blixa

Post by _Blixa »

Gazelam wrote:
There are bits of Mormon history I find fascinating and not all of it is "negative" as you know from my earlier post on "heroes of the mountain meadows massacre" (by the way that was an incomplete list, I may write up a better version sometime soon). As much as I may truly despise some of the historical leaders of ldsism, I do find the lives, sacrifices and sincerity of members to be a very moving thing (and something which usually leads me to despise the leaders even more...). Maybe I can post a bit about those history bits at some point, too...


Just to let you know, I've printed off that list and shared it with a number of people. That is cherished information to me, and a great insight into the time period and event. Thank you for sharing that.


I wish it had been more complete. Well, I will have a better version sometime in the coming months when I've had time to work on it...

I have nothing very fascinating to share at the moment. I was recently back at the NYPL working through the John W. Phelps papers and I also walked around mid-town looking to see if the building the William Hooper Young murder was committed in was still standing (inconclusive), but none of that turned up anything all that interesting.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_marg

Post by _marg »

Since this thread is not exactly hopping I'll respond but will refrain from further commenting.

marg wrote:I can appreciate that sometimes exceptions need to be made, that a focus needs to be specified and what can be talked about needs to be narrowed down for expediency.


liz3564 wrote: You're talking in circles. You say that you can appreciate that sometimes exceptions need to be made, and yet you're refusing to respect the exception in this case because it doesn't suit you to do so.


No circle. I think sometimes certain conclusions needs to be eliminated because they don't offer insight, any warranted reasoning, they simply are claims absent evidence. The "God did it" explanation is the one I'm thinking of. It reduces to a counter argument of "without evidence for God it can not be assumed." So for expediency, supernatural claims which only serve to stop further discussion and reasoning are justifiably removed from discussion and naturalistic explanations focussed on. In this thread I don't see a need for expediency. Skeptical questioning can serve to further the discussion. Those who use reasoning for their beliefs typically want to present that reasoning. Those who have experiences which are not rationally explanable, which seem to defy natural physcal laws typically do not want skeptical review.

marg wrote:My impression by you and Moksha with his faith promoting request post, is that you seem to think you are victims on this board, unable to talk about beliefs without opposition. But this IS a discussion board. It shouldn't be viewed as a negative to have opposition to one's beliefs. And if you can't take opposition then what are you here for?


liz3564 wrote:And when have I EVER come off as a victim? I hardly see myself that way, and I doubt that Moksha does, either. You're forgetting, Marg, that both Moksha and I were banned from FAIR because of our association with THIS board, and the free speech that THIS board provided.


You move threads, this is the second time to the Celestial forum with the intent in mind of shielding from what you refer to as rude commentary, from people such as myself. Your exacts words are in the Telestial forum which I could quote if need be. So asking someone to stay on point and not quote scripture you consider rude, and skeptical questioning of people's claimed spiritual experiences you consider taking pot shots. If you feel it necessary to shield you must think believers are poorly treated, victimized. JAK is correct you want "happy talk" not a discussion which includes any sort of skepticism.

liz3564 wrote:Look, marg, post to your heart's content. All Mok and I are asking is that, on this thread, you stick to the OP, and respect others' views. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. That just means that on THIS thread, retract your claws, and resist the urge to pounce.


I rarely pounce. I think what it boils down to is that you do not want any skeptical questioning of what you believe is "sacred".
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

marg wrote:You move threads, this is the second time to the Celestial forum with the intent in mind of shielding from what you refer to as rude commentary, from people such as myself.


Now, who's playing the victim?

For some reason, you think I have a vendetta against you specifically, and I don't.


Yes, I have moved threads to the Celestial Forum with the intent of "shielding rude commentary". So has Shades. Re-read the rules for threads in the Celestial Forum:

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.


What you don't seem to understand, Marg, is that it's possible to be scholarly in your discussion without being rude.

Like I said before, I have no problem with you disagreeing with a person's stance as long as you do it in a respectful manner.
_marg

Post by _marg »

liz3564 wrote:
marg wrote:You move threads, this is the second time to the Celestial forum with the intent in mind of shielding from what you refer to as rude commentary, from people such as myself.


Now, who's playing the victim?

For some reason, you think I have a vendetta against you specifically, and I don't.


Your words Liz, not mine. Do you remember writing in the telestial forum the following?
"Thread where Marg acts like a bitch to a new poster

The reason I was confused was because shortly after this little incident, Grampa75 posted this thread, which I moved to the Celestial Forum to ensure that posters like yourself would not be rude to him regarding his experiences:"


I was never rude to him in the first place. And I'm rarely rude to posters, Liz.

Yes, I have moved threads to the Celestial Forum with the intent of "shielding rude commentary". So has Shades. Re-read the rules for threads in the Celestial Forum:

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.

What you don't seem to understand, Marg, is that it's possible to be scholarly in your discussion without being rude.

Like I said before, I have no problem with you disagreeing with a person's stance as long as you do it in a respectful manner.


As I said Liz I'm rarely rude. What you want in this thread is no skeptical commentary on what you view as sacred. You are implying that any skeptical commentary is being rude.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

marg wrote:As I said Liz I'm rarely rude. What you want in this thread is no skeptical commentary on what you view as sacred. You are implying that any skeptical commentary is being rude.


Telling someone that they are simply hallucinating when they have experienced something of spiritual value to them is rude in the context of what Mok wanted to allow for in this thread.

He expressed a desire for a thread where people who had spiritual experiences could feel comfortable sharing them without people telling them they were crazy for doing so.

Frankly, I don't think that's too much to ask.

Also, I don't have a problem with you or JAK coming at things from a scholarly perspective as long as you are not personally attacking a poster while doing it.

As long as those groundrules are kept in mind, like I said, post to your heart's content.

Since you're rarely rude to posters, this shouldn't be a problem for you.
_marg

Post by _marg »

liz3564 wrote:
Telling someone that they are simply hallucinating when they have experienced something of spiritual value to them is rude in the context of what Mok wanted to allow for in this thread.


Perhaps you are thinking of this previous discussion

Liz:
I don't think that you or JAK have any business insinuating that Nehor is a liar simply because he does not want to share his spiritual experiences in detail.

They are of a deeply personal nature, and frankly, difficult, if not impossible, to explain to someone who is closed-minded to the possibility that the experience could really exist in the first place.



Note your reasoning for my non-acceptance of Nehor's spiritual experience...is that I'm too closed minded. You offer no other alternative. And that if I don't accept I'm accusing him of lying. And you don't consider another possibility to lying..such as hallucinations.

Closed minded Liz, is when someone does not take into consideration the various alternatives.

My respond to you was to suggest the possiblity of other alternative besides me being closed minded, which I'm not. I'm skeptical of extraordinary claims made absent evidence there is a huge difference. And the alternative besides Nehor lying and besides the event actually occuring as you seem to assume..as you say "the experience could really exist in the first place"

So my response to you was the following:

"There is a difference between someone experiencing something in their mind solely and someone experiencing something that occurred actually. It may very well be Nehor experienced something in his mind, which didn't occur in actuality, but because he is so vague, I'm not convinced of that either.

I'm not the least bit closed minded to appreciating people hallucinate. I don't require extraordinary evidence for that. And why exactly should hallucinations be too personal? "

I fail to see how this is being rude Liz. I think it closed minded of you, to not look at alternative besides the "possibility the extraordinary claim which defies natural physicals actually occurred.

He expressed a desire for a thread where people who had spiritual experiences could feel comfortable sharing them without people telling them they were crazy for doing so.


The mind play tricks from time to time, it doesn't mean a person is necessarily crazy. But that is a huge discussion in itself.

Frankly, I don't think that's too much to ask.

Also, I don't have a problem with you or JAK coming at things from a scholarly perspective as long as you are not personally attacking a poster while doing it.

As long as those groundrules are kept in mind, like I said, post to your heart's content.

Since you're rarely rude to posters, this shouldn't be a problem for you.


Well it depends on whether there is a moderator interpreting discussions as being rude when they are not. This Celestial forum is not meant to be a haven for extraordinary claims to be shielded from inquiry.

Good critical thinking does not hold any beliefs as sacred from inquiry.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Marg, it's obvious that what this all boils down to is that you don't like my moderating style.

I've said what I have to say, and you obviously disagree. I'm not even speaking to you in a moderating mode here, but rather as a co-collaborator on this thread with Mok.

If you have problems with my moderating style, PM Shades.

If Shades asks me to step down, I'll gladly do so, and if you think you can do this so much better, than have at it.

I'm sick of hashing and re-hashing crap with you.

Say whatever it is you're going to say.

I'm done. If you want to count this as a victory, fine. I really don't care anymore.

Frankly, there was an experience I was interested in relating, but there is no way I will do that now. Mok, I'll PM it to you later, or put it on my blog.
_marg

Post by _marg »

liz3564 wrote:Marg, it's obvious that what this all boils down to is that you don't like my moderating style.


The only time I notice your moderating style is when it is either a slam against myself or it interferes with my posts. And if I think it's not justified I'll say something.
Post Reply