Pot, Meet Kettle: A Master Class in Hypocrisy from a Self-Proclaimed Paragon of Truth

[I Have Questions]

In the "universe" of possibilities, MG's specific multi-conditional setup is just one of many, with no particular value to recommend it over all of the others. Even Mormon teachings, that god's ways are not our ways, make his appeal to " a good, personal creator of moral agents", "a 'good God', a perfectly moral God" pure speculation.

We see things differently. And as I've repeatedly said, no one is trying to convince you of anything.

What? You’ve repeatedly said you’re here to do missionary work - which is literally you trying to convince everyone that your belief system is better than all the other belief systems. Weee you lying when you said you come here to do missionary work, or are you lying now by saying you’re not here to do missionary work?

[malkie]

In the "universe" of possibilities, MG's specific multi-conditional setup is just one of many, with no particular value to recommend it over all of the others. Even Mormon teachings, that god's ways are not our ways, make his appeal to " a good, personal creator of moral agents", "a 'good God', a perfectly moral God" pure speculation.

We see things differently. And as I've repeatedly said, no one is trying to convince you of anything. Obviously, you've been there, done that.

I'm not comfortable with agnosticism/atheism. It just doesn't make sense to me. Call it a gut feeling. Also, being as that I believe in God, I don't see any other way than to look at God as being good and perfectly moral.

And yeah, I know the arguments that would try and persuade one to look at God as a 'monster'. If you want to go that direction, that's fine. I think you're mistaken. Grossly so.

Be that as as it may.

Regards,
MG

Curious that you didn't quote the entire para I wrote, yet responded to the part you missed. For reference, here is the complete paragraph:

In the "universe" of possibilities, MG's specific multi-conditional setup is just one of many, with no particular value to recommend it over all of the others. Even Mormon teachings, that god's ways are not our ways, make his appeal to " a good, personal creator of moral agents", "a 'good God', a perfectly moral God" pure speculation. We already know from the scriptures that, in terms of human moral judgement, MG's god is a sadistic monster, who could equally well be keeping us "alive" after "death" to torture us. We simply have no way of knowing.

I'd be interested to hear your take on "the arguments that would try and persuade one to look at God as a 'monster'." Would you like to to quote Old Testament passages that show your god behaving in a way, and commanding actions, that I think most of us non- and ex-Mormons would consider to be reprehensible?

Please be clear about which of your statements we can regard as "official" Mormon teachings, and which are your own ideas that are not supported by the church leaders.

[I Have Questions]

You know how you keep complaining that us critics are trying to constrain your god, and saying what we think he should or would do or think? And yet you frequently seem to be insisting that his plans and actions should conform to your idea of " just plain common sense". What gives you that right, I wonder.

I certainly don't think that god is "dumb or something". I don't believe he exists. But if, for the sake of argument, he did exist, I expect he would have a mind of his own, and might even tell people that his ways are not their ways, and that they should stop trying to put words in his mouth. And, yes, I'm aware of what I did there It's not your exclusive territory.

Here's my take malkie. I think that if God exists and He wants me to know something, He has the capability of telling me directly. Once you start deferring responsibility for your thoughts to a bunch of Iron Age bloggers with their own agendas, or a group of geriatric convicted fraudsters with their own agenda, you've abdicated your life. On what basis does an old guy who has committed a complex financial deception have better standing to talk about what God does or doesn't think about any given subject, than me or you?

[Chap]

[...]

I think that if God exists and He wants me to know something, He has the capability of telling me directly. Once you start deferring responsibility for your thoughts to a bunch of Iron Age bloggers with their own agendas, or a group of geriatric convicted fraudsters with their own agenda, you've abdicated your life. On what basis does an old guy who has committed a complex financial deception have better standing to talk about what God does or doesn't think about any given subject, than me or you?

[...]

My view precisely. And especially if you can never tell at the time whether someone was just 'speaking as a man'.

[Rivendale]

[...]

I think that if God exists and He wants me to know something, He has the capability of telling me directly. Once you start deferring responsibility for your thoughts to a bunch of Iron Age bloggers with their own agendas, or a group of geriatric convicted fraudsters with their own agenda, you've abdicated your life. On what basis does an old guy who has committed a complex financial deception have better standing to talk about what God does or doesn't think about any given subject, than me or you?

[...]

My view precisely. And especially if you can never tell at the time whether someone was just 'speaking as a man'.

Many believers take the Nuremberg path. They believe that following the prophets when speaking as a man is a virtue and worthy of the obedience reward. Mormonism and most Abrahamic religions are mercenary religions relying on quid pro quo as their modus operandi.