Where I'm at...

[_Yong Xi]

This is interesting. From what I have observed, the tendency is to compromise/sacrifice the heart (feelings) in favor of the mind (intellect). Yet, you seem to be doing just the opposite.

No doubt this will strike the intellectual chauvanist as illogical. ;-)

For my part, I am working to marry the heart and mind and make them one, rather than divorce the two and go with one or the other. But, that may just be a personal preference. It works for me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's pretty much my goal. The nice thing is that my mind tells me that Mormonism is false, and my heart tells me the same thing. It's just getting the two to agree what to do next that's the tricky part.

It's not so "tricky" when one has a positive conviction (feeling/believing a given belief system is good, right and true) rather than just a negative conviction (believing/feeling a belief system is false). At least that has been my experience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

History is full of examples of those with positive convictions (good feelings) of false/bad systems.

In business, use your head. In art, use your heart. In religion, don't take it too seriously.

[_wenglund]

For my part, I am working to marry the heart and mind and make them one, rather than divorce the two and go with one or the other. But, that may just be a personal preference. It works for me.

So what do you do when your feelings contradict your thoughts? Which one wins?

I try to mediate between the two so that both win. ;-)

It may help to understand that mediating a win-win does not necessitate bringing the opposing parties (be they the mind and heart, husband and wife, employer and employee, etc.) to a oneness or complete agreement in perspective and point of view, but rather by facilitating mutual benefit.

I like what Carl Sagan said on this: "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."

He also said, "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."

I like what Pascal said: "The heart has its reasons that reason does not understand."

To me, logic without passion is meaningless, and passion without logic is valueless. That is why I prefer to marry the heart and the mind (so that life will have meaning and value). But, others are free to be heartless or mindless. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tarski]

A good God would have to be one that doesn't mind all that much which church you attend

Such a God is a liar and a respector of persons by implication. For example....

If God tells one group of people a certain thing about sin, the requirements for salvation, or His nature and then proceeds to tell another group of people something different about those items, then God is a liar and respector of persons.

That is the implication of believing in a God as you describe.

The problem is that God is not telling any of these churches what they think he is.
All the doctrines of baptism, rites, rituals and specific requirements for being saved are invented by people. This simple observation explains a lot.

[_wenglund]

History is full of examples of those with positive convictions (good feelings) of false/bad systems.

The same is true of "true"/"good" systems.

In business, use your head...

Successful business people also employ the heart--particularly in their sales, marketing, PR, and service departments.

In art, use your heart.

Great artists also involve the mind--particularly in terms of technique and interpretation.

In religion, don't take it too seriously.

And, take even less seriously comments like this by anonymous posters on internet discussion boards. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

For my part, I am working to marry the heart and mind and make them one, rather than divorce the two and go with one or the other. But, that may just be a personal preference. It works for me.

So what do you do when your feelings contradict your thoughts? Which one wins?

I try to mediate between the two so that both win. ;-)

It may help to understand that mediating a win-win does not necessitate bringing the opposing parties (be they the mind and heart, husband and wife, employer and employee, etc.) to a oneness or complete agreement in perspective and point of view, but rather by facilitating mutual benefit.

So, in other words, you're willing to compromise what you think to accommodate your feelings. I see. I've noticed that about you.

I like what Carl Sagan said on this: "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."

He also said, "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."

I like what Pascal said: "The heart has its reasons that reason does not understand."

To me, logic without passion is meaningless, and passion without logic is valueless. That is why I prefer to marry the heart and the mind (so that life will have meaning and value). But, others are free to be heartless or mindless. ;-)

If it works for you, that's fine, but just because you attach meaning to your life doesn't mean there's any meaning to it outside what you give it. Willing it doesn't make it so, no matter how passionately you do so.

And by the way, logic does not need passion to have meaning, as sentimentally good as you think the opposite sounds. If you want to dilute your thoughts with emotion, you end up being just as mindless as anyone else.

[_wenglund]

A good God would have to be one that doesn't mind all that much which church you attend

Such a God is a liar and a respector of persons by implication. For example....

If God tells one group of people a certain thing about sin, the requirements for salvation, or His nature and then proceeds to tell another group of people something different about those items, then God is a liar and respector of persons.

That is the implication of believing in a God as you describe.

The problem is that God is not telling any these churches what they think he is. All the doctrines of baptism, rites, rituals and specific requirements for being saved are invented by people. This simple observation explains a lot.

This is not "the problem" for those of us who do not share your opinion and who have simply observed differently than you. It is only a "the problem" for those who do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tarski]

History is full of examples of those with positive convictions (good feelings) of false/bad systems.

The same is true of "true"/"good" systems.

and so we see the need for empirical evidence. Feelings of conviction settle nothing.

[_wenglund]

For my part, I am working to marry the heart and mind and make them one, rather than divorce the two and go with one or the other. But, that may just be a personal preference. It works for me.

So what do you do when your feelings contradict your thoughts? Which one wins?

I try to mediate between the two so that both win. ;-)

It may help to understand that mediating a win-win does not necessitate bringing the opposing parties (be they the mind and heart, husband and wife, employer and employee, etc.) to a oneness or complete agreement in perspective and point of view, but rather by facilitating mutual benefit.

So, in other words, you're willing to compromise what you think to accommodate your feelings. I see. I've noticed that about you.

You mistakenly assume that mediation necessarily entails compromise. It doesn't, though at times it may.

And, I don't recall a single instance where my thinking and my heart have conflicted on this board, let alone where I compromised the one in lieu of the other. But, since you think or feel that you have noticed that about me, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide a single example.

I like what Carl Sagan said on this: "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."

He also said, "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."

I like what Pascal said: "The heart has its reasons that reason does not understand."

To me, logic without passion is meaningless, and passion without logic is valueless. That is why I prefer to marry the heart and the mind (so that life will have meaning and value). But, others are free to be heartless or mindless. ;-)

If it works for you, that's fine, but just because you attach meaning to your life doesn't mean there's any meaning to it outside what you give it. Willing it doesn't make it so, no matter how passionately you do so.

Is this what you "think" or what you "feel"? ;-)

Either way, if "meaningfulness" is subjective, then your first statement makes sense but your second statement doesn't. However, if "meaningfulness" is objective, then your first statement doesn't make sense, but your second statement does.

Which is it?

And by the way, logic does not need passion to have meaning, as sentimentally good as you think the opposite sounds.

I am open to learning more about this. Could you provide an example where passionless logic is meaningful?

If you want to dilute your thoughts with emotion, you end up being just as mindless as anyone else.

But, I don't wish to dilute either my thoughts or my emotions. And, I don't believe that to be the inevitable consiquence of marrying the two--though it may be the case with people who think and feel the way you do. In fact, I think/feel that the marriage between thought and emotion is often complementary and synergistic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

History is full of examples of those with positive convictions (good feelings) of false/bad systems.

The same is true of "true"/"good" systems.

and so we see the need for empirical evidence. Feelings of conviction settle nothing.

Since empirical evidence is, in and of itself, meaning/value neutral, we see the need for "feelings of conviction" so as to settle things in a meaningful and valued way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

History is full of examples of those with positive convictions (good feelings) of false/bad systems.

The same is true of "true"/"good" systems.

and so we see the need for empirical evidence. Feelings of conviction settle nothing.

Since empirical evidence is, in and of itself, meaning/value neutral, we see the need for "feelings of conviction" so as to settle things in a meaningful and valued way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

WADE!!! Where ya been??