my brother the athiest.

The place for religious discussions -- doctrinal or cultural, Mormon or otherwise.

Moderators: Lady Celtic, Eric's Moderator Brother, seespot, Sara without the H

Posts: 82
Joined: Fri 04 Nov, 2005 10:23 am

Postby Ishmael » Tue 06 Nov, 2007 11:39 am

Ack! Are you implying that Matt is a (mostly) lost cause? Please be careful, the fact that your life experience isn't his life experience only means he's different.
I agree with Matt that belief is not something we choose. I'm just searching for something in Mormonism that will allow for that possibility. Alma 32, with it's suggestion that a desire to believe may be sufficient, suggests the possibility of that kind of compromise.

Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 03:13 pm
Location: Portland

Re: Choice

Postby EricDSnider » Tue 06 Nov, 2007 12:14 pm

vegastransplant wrote:It's a little sad to see all this justification and rationalization for someone's choice. Especially from a group of people who, at least at one point, seemed fairly strong.

You can't believe unless you choose to believe - even if that choice is defined as choosing to believe in the possibility. It at least begins with that choice.

Conversely, "deconversion" requires a choice to no longer believe. If doubts begin to arise, one must choose to entertain those doubts.

All action, thought, and belief is a result of choice. The principle of choice is central to the entire gospel.

You choose to leave God, not the other way around. One shouldn't talk around it with a false air of intellectualism to justify one's lack of spirituality.

All rise! This court is in session, the honorable Vegastransplant presiding!

User avatar
Lowdoggy Dogg
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu 21 Aug, 2003 08:08 am
Location: Gatortown, FL

Postby Lowdoggy Dogg » Tue 06 Nov, 2007 01:11 pm

I think we're back to arguing semantics. Not really going to get us anywhere.

User avatar
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue 03 Dec, 2002 03:31 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Postby Matt » Tue 06 Nov, 2007 02:17 pm

Lowdoggy Dogg wrote:I think we're back to arguing semantics. Not really going to get us anywhere.
Could be, but at this point it's not clear that we actually agree on the nature of agency and how it is (or even if it is) constrained by environment. It seems that the disagreement is at a more fundamental level.
goto 10

Return to “Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests