Who's left?

[_mentalgymnast]

Kevin is reasoning that it only stands to reason that God would answer prayers about the truthfulness of a religion. But that isn't something he can assume while simultaneously believing that it's OK that God does not prevent any of the world's inscrutable suffering.

The evidence, such as it is, seems to demonstrate that not everyone gets answers to their prayers within an expected time frame. I, for one, haven't had an undeniable witness in specificity to the truthfulness of the LDS Church. And I'm pushing 60 years old and BIC. How's that for patience? In addition, those that think that maybe they have received some kind of answer may be left with a somewhat inscrutable sense of what transpired and be left "wondering". So, In other words's, I think that it is not incompatible to look at the way God (if He exists) operates in the world (inscrutable) and the way He responds to different individuals in response to their queries about the truth claims of the LDS Church. The ways of God in both respects are inscrutable and hard to ascertain and/or make sense out of in specificity. We are only left to talk about generalities which may or may not be applicable in the first instance.

The fact remains that even if his religious beliefs are true, God doesn't intervene in circumstances were it would be reasonable for God to intervene.

Not to be a dope, but so says you.

You say as much yourself.

Well, not quite.

So you cannot assume that any prayer's "answer" comes from God because you'd expect God to intervene in such a circumstance.

Again, the evidence, such as it is, seems to demonstrate otherwise. We can't expect God to intervene at any time, in any place, and under ANY conditions. It appears that God is a God of discretion, or not at all. We have the word of God that seems to tell a tale of a God who "does" and "doesn't", but I personally think that this limits God to not acting in a discretionary method as he does His thing. I don't think I'd want to take that away from Him...after all, He has agency too, doesn't he?

As I said above, in addition to it being an artifact of how the brain works, it could simply be other spirit beings. Indeed, you'll have no trouble finding evangelicals who think Satan is playing a role in such events.

Could be, I suppose, but I rather doubt it. I would hesitate to put that much emphasis on ascribing answers to prayers, in mass, to demons or a Satanic force. Now spirit beings? There seems to be some evidence in the NDE world that this might play a part in explaining the divide between the here and there, assuming there's a "there".

Regards,
MG

[_Quasimodo]

The evidence, such as it is, seems to demonstrate that not everyone gets answers to their prayers within an expected time frame. I, for one, haven't had an undeniable witness in specificity to the truthfulness of the LDS Church. And I'm pushing 60 years old and BIC. How's that for patience? In addition, those that think that maybe they have received some kind of answer may be left with a somewhat inscrutable sense of what transpired and be left "wondering". So, In other words's, I think that it is not incompatible to look at the way God (if He exists) operates in the world (inscrutable) and the way He responds to different individuals in response to their queries about the truth claims of the LDS Church. The ways of God in both respects are inscrutable and hard to ascertain and/or make sense out of in specificity. We are only left to talk about generalities which may or may not be applicable in the first instance.
Regards,
MG

It works that way with Santa, too. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie actually gets to talk with Santa at a department store and asks for a BB gun. Santa wisely replies "you'll shoot your eye out, kid".

Never the less, on Christmas morning, Santa has relented and Ralphie gets his Red Rider BB gun. God and Santa work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform.

[_mentalgymnast]

The evidence, such as it is, seems to demonstrate that not everyone gets answers to their prayers within an expected time frame. I, for one, haven't had an undeniable witness in specificity to the truthfulness of the LDS Church. And I'm pushing 60 years old and BIC. How's that for patience? In addition, those that think that maybe they have received some kind of answer may be left with a somewhat inscrutable sense of what transpired and be left "wondering". So, In other words's, I think that it is not incompatible to look at the way God (if He exists) operates in the world (inscrutable) and the way He responds to different individuals in response to their queries about the truth claims of the LDS Church. The ways of God in both respects are inscrutable and hard to ascertain and/or make sense out of in specificity. We are only left to talk about generalities which may or may not be applicable in the first instance.
Regards,
MG

It works that way with Santa, too. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie actually gets to talk with Santa at a department store and asks for a BB gun. Santa wisely replies "you'll shoot your eye out, kid".

Never the less, on Christmas morning, Santa has relented and Ralphie gets his Red Rider BB gun. God and Santa work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform.

You're an atheist? I haven't read enough of your stuff to know one way or the other, but it seems to be in vogue around here from what I can tell. Atheists seem to really like Santa...a lot. He comes to the rescue quite often.

Regards,
MG

[_Quasimodo]

You're an atheist? I haven't read enough of your stuff to know one way or the other, but it seems to be in vogue around here from what I can tell. Atheists seem to really like Santa...a lot. He comes to the rescue quite often.

Regards,
MG

I think of myself as an agnostic (whatever that means). Hated by both extremes. I just don't think I'm smart enough to know if there is a God or not.

I have two opinions about God. One is that I'm sure I don't know anything about God. The other is that I'm pretty sure no one else does, either.

I think the reason Santa is often compared to God is that they're very similar. We are taught as children to believe in both and there is not much evidence of either.

The main difference is that at some point in a child's life his parents will admit that they were just kidding about one of them.

[_Bazooka]

You're an atheist? I haven't read enough of your stuff to know one way or the other, but it seems to be in vogue around here from what I can tell. Atheists seem to really like Santa...a lot. He comes to the rescue quite often.

Regards,
MG

I think of myself as an agnostic (whatever that means). Hated by both extremes. I just don't think I'm smart enough to know if there is a God or not.

I have two opinions about God. One is that I'm sure I don't know anything about God. The other is that I'm pretty sure no one else does, either.

I think the reason Santa is often compared to God is that they're very similar. We are taught as children to believe in both and there is not much evidence of either.

The main difference is that at some point in a child's life his parents will admit that they were just kidding about one of them.

I'm also agnostic.
If there is a God we will find out soon enough, why try and spoil the surprise....

As for Santa, He is very real.
I've seen him on more than one occasion, and he always remembers me at Christmas time.

[_Bazooka]

If, for some bizarre reason that I cannot fathom, I had been desperately in need of knowing what to do with my "shed load" of money, and I had asked God (never before having asked a question of God) if I should give it to Mr. Ponzi, and had gotten an affirmative answer, then by all means I would have given Mr. Ponzi the money.

Do you think there's a specific reason why Mormon's are so prone to falling for MLM scams?

In fact, it's largely because I know that the LDS Church is true that I came to the conclusion that I shouldn't give just anybody "shed loads" of money. The Church has been pretty clear that we should show caution in such matters.

Except when paying tithing.
The Church advocates you handing that over regardless of your financial circumstances and regardless of the fact that you have no idea where the money goes.
I hear that Bednar is really enjoying the holiday home the Church bought for him.

[_ludwigm]

As for Santa, He is very real.
I've seen him on more than one occasion, and he always remembers me at Christmas time.

Even NORAD tracks him.

[_Bazooka]

No, 'ignorant' as in unnecessarily dismissive of posters or their points.

Can you point to an example of me being "unnecessarily dismissive"? I tend to think I give everyone a fair shake, and am only dismissive when it's clear that same courtesy is not being extended to me. If you think that's not true, please show me a pattern that fits with your characterization above.

See your contributions on the thread about "Are Missionaries Safe...?" where you are unnecessarily dismissive of posters missionary experiences, simply because you hold claim to some confidential paperwork. I think they support my suggestion about your 'ignorance' more than adequately.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31454

[_Some Schmo]

I'm not sure about your discussions with others, but it's certainly been the case with me. I heard your concerns and commented on them in the few times we've discussed things.

From what I recall, those "comments" amounted to snarky rhetorical jabs and insults. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but you preferred rhetoric to actual dialogue far more often than not. It was a rare post that had any sincere or helpful statements in it.

It's easy to turn around when your argument goes south and claim you weren't being heard (which is code for "people don't buy your often outrageous premises"), but the timing of your exits suggests otherwise.

Feel free to provide an example.

I am not any more snarky than you are. You probably think your delivery is more sophisticated (or something... mature, maybe?) but you are only kidding yourself.

You booked when you realized you couldn't make a valid argument to back up your idea of genetic "intention" without invoking god.

I don't have that luxury (to finish conversations) when I spend weeks at a time in places with spotty internet access and lots of other things to do.

If you say so.

And nobody but you cares how much of a grown-up you are. You could save yourself some effort there.

Maybe your assumptions about my motivations are just inaccurate.

Perhaps. Makes me wonder why you're so focused on it when you post, then.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Gawrsh fellas. I'm absolutely tickled at this highest of honors you have bestowed upon me; that you respect and fear me so much that you apply some of your worst invective in order to try and poison the well against me.

Thank you. Thank you one and all. Keep checking those children (let us know when you have real evidence for the existence of horny 'ol Joe) and perhaps one day you'll find a reasonable excuse for good 'ol Willy Law to have been chased down the street out by the high society and academia of Boston in defense of the Mormons.

That's it??? That's your whole argument? No children genetically linked to Joseph Smith through his 30 some-odd "extra wives"? Therefore, he didn't have sex with them?

Sad.

But you and others did actually try and check the data, didn't you, so you couldn't have been all that sure.

Isn't that called poking your nose into someone else's pecker?