Please see post #107 in the Does Evil Exist thread! Important!!

[why me]

Hi everyone!

I posted (#107) a response to Born free's post in the 'Does Evil Exist' thread. Born Free and I would like your comments. I needed to post a new thread about it because I felt that the thread was now being used only by Miss Taken, aether, Dancinfree and I. And Born Free did want some comments from all of you. And I also think that the discussion needs to be opened up for general comment and you should notice it. Take care out there and have fun this weekend! :)

[dogzilla]

I ignored it after the first page for several reasons:

1) I usually read and post from work and this thread required more thought than I am able to donate on company time.

2) There was no concensus (Why does that not look spelled right?), agreed-upon definition of "evil" for which we all have different definitions. I find it difficult to engage in a reasonable logical debate when all the participants have different ideas about exactly what the topic is.

3) It seems like I agreed with Aether from somewhere around her first or second post to the thread, so I wouldn't have had anything useful to add besides, "yeah, what she said."

4) As the thread grew and grew and required even more brain power to read, digest, understand and then comment... I came to have less and less time available to devote to it.

As much as I'd like to comment now, per your request , I still don't see how those comments would a) resolve anything, b) add anything thoughtful to the discussion or c) make any difference to anyone. I guess I just don't see the point of looking up after 8 pages and saying, "Hey, y'all want to jump in on this?" Maybe it's time all of you took the weekend off and went out to play in the sun instead of debating about evil in cyberspace.

My $0.02: I look at the world in shades of gray. I believe evil exists, by my definition of evil. I believe that rarely is any one thing 100% evil or 100% good, if indeed good and evil are opposites. (Which is a whole other thread. For example, I don't think hate is the opposite of love. Hate still implies some degree of caring. Indifference is the opposite of love. IMHO.) I think that, like sexuality, good and evil co-exist on a continuum and where you draw the line, in terms of deciding what you call what, is a personal choice. AND that there's no sense at all in trying to get someone else to define things or think about them in the same way you do. But hey, I'm a -- what did that Greek guy call me? -- a narrow-minded puritanical tyrant, what do I know? (I'm going to have to change my sig or something.)

Did you want your change back? :o

[aether]

Aw Dogzilla. As flattered as I am to hear that you'd just say what I said... we'd stopped talking about evil, and were discussing political systems. I believe that's what Why Me is referring to.

Personally.. I don't want to get involved anymore. It all comes down to the fact that what I want the government's role to be is different from what Why Me and Miss Taken want the government's role to be.

[why me]

Aw Dogzilla. As flattered as I am to hear that you'd just say what I said... we'd stopped talking about evil, and were discussing political systems. I believe that's what Why Me is referring to.

Personally.. I don't want to get involved anymore. It all comes down to the fact that what I want the government's role to be is different from what Why Me and Miss Taken want the government's role to be.


Aether! Get mom back from the wedding...I need her support! Quick! Fly her in to Salt Lake and get her to a computer! How could she leave me like this!! Okay so I am over-reacting...it's a male thing... :cool:

[silverfox]

Here are my comments as a member:

I love that there is so much diversity here on the board. I love learning from all of you. Not much that has been stated has swayed me from what I already believe but I find it all very interesting.

We bond in a cyber way that is hard to explain that brings us close to each other on a deep emotional level at times - in spite of any differences.

We have one thing in common - we are post mo. That is what has brought us all here together to start with.

I have no issues personally with any political or religious debate. I find it all quite interesting.

Now as a moderator -

For those members who post there is a lot of bonding going on. This brings us comfort levels as to how we post our opinions and react to each other. We become secure and comfortable with each other and therefore our inhibitions are relaxed. We learn to accept each other in spite of differences. That's AWESOME!

BUT we have to remember there are other members, lurkers and future posters/members who we need to try to be sensitive to in how we present our ideas and opinions. It's not a matter of what our opinions are - it is all in HOW they are presented.

The main purpose of this board is to offer support for those leaving the church, have left the church, or are simply just confused about the church. We in no way want to "scare off" anyone who may need our help and support.

The difference between Ryan's posts and recent posts is that Ryan continued to break forum policy via posts and private messaging after several warnings.

We tried to work with Ryan in private to come to a compromise to no avail. Please remember there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes to find resolution when there is conflict. Just because we don't publicize our efforts does not mean they are not there.

Please also remember the forum policy is in place for a reason. All board members agreed there needed to be a policy and after many discussions all agreed on what it should state.

When one accepts membership to the forum, they are accepting and promising to follow the policy.

End.

Now, carry on and have fun and thank you to all our members who make this such a diverse wonderful place to be.

[why me]

Here are my comments as a member:

I love that there is so much diversity here on the board. I love learning from all of you. Not much that has been stated has swayed me from what I already believe but I find it all very interesting.

We bond in a cyber way that is hard to explain that brings us close to each other on a deep emotional level at times - in spite of any differences.

We have one thing in common - we are post mo. That is what has brought us all here together to start with.

I have no issues personally with any political or religious debate. I find it all quite interesting.

Now as a moderator -

For those members who post there is a lot of bonding going on. This brings us comfort levels as to how we post our opinions and react to each other. We become secure and comfortable with each other and therefore our inhibitions are relaxed. We learn to accept each other in spite of differences. That's AWESOME!

BUT we have to remember there are other members, lurkers and future posters/members who we need to try to be sensitive to in how we present our ideas and opinions. It's not a matter of what our opinions are - it is all in HOW they are presented.

The main purpose of this board is to offer support for those leaving the church, have left the church, or are simply just confused about the church. We in no way want to "scare off" anyone who may need our help and support.

The difference between Ryan's posts and recent posts is that Ryan continued to break forum policy via posts and private messaging after several warnings.

We tried to work with Ryan in private to come to a compromise to no avail. Please remember there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes to find resolution when there is conflict. Just because we don't publicize our efforts does not mean they are not there.

Please also remember the forum policy is in place for a reason. All board members agreed there needed to be a policy and after many discussions all agreed on what it should state.

When one accepts membership to the forum, they are accepting and promising to follow the policy.

End.

Now, carry on and have fun and thank you to all our members who make this such a diverse wonderful place to be.


This is well said. You should keep your post in a file somewhere and bring it out again when there is a problem. And I am sure there will be problems again...people are only human afterall.

But silverfox you also need to understand that Postmo's are naturally disobedient of authority...hahahaha! :D or with the laugh of dancinfree hehehehe! :D

[helemon]

Hi everyone!

I posted (#107) a response to Born free's post in the 'Does Evil Exist' thread. Born Free and I would like your comments. I needed to post a new thread about it because I felt that the thread was now being used only by Miss Taken, aether, Dancinfree and I. And Born Free did want some comments from all of you. And I also think that the discussion needs to be opened up for general comment and you should notice it. Take care out there and have fun this weekend! :)

I am not going to read through all the posts on that thread but here are a few of my opinions about government.

I believe it is the role of the government to "provide for the common defense." Our government officials are also sworn to defend it "against all enemies both foreign and domestic." This has commonly been interpreted as a need for a military to defend against foreign invaders. While I think this is part of it I think these oaths can also be applied to ensuring that corporate practices do not endanger the lives of our citizens. I think a government that is "by the people, of the people, for the people" needs to have as one of it's primary resposibilities ensuring that companies do not defraud, endanger or abuse it's citizens. We went to war against terror because 2985 people were killed in that horrible attack. And we have sacrificed thousands more lives to solve this problem. But how many people die of the effects of pollution and shoddy products? How many lives are ruined by predatory lending practices? Shouldn't we also declare war on these enemies? Beck's "Risk Society" is a classic on how distorted our sense of risk and danger is as evidenced by what we choose to spend our monetary resources on.

However, while I think the government should create safety nets for the poor, I don't agree completely with socialism. I think there needs to be competition in the marketplace. Competition is a natural force that promotes innovation and problem solving and should be rewarded. There should be protections on intellectual property and there should be protection against the companies with the largest market share being able to squeeze out the superior products produced by smaller companies. There should be greater disclosure by companies about how they make their products so that consumers can make more informed decisions and allow them to more effectively vote their values with their pocketbook.

[miss taken]

Helemon I absolutely agree 100% with what you say here. My husband owns and runs his own company, running your own company definitely has its advantages over being an employee any day.

But companies have responsibilities to society just as individuals do.

I do absolutely believe in the Freedom to Choose, but with limits and checks and balances.

Just one question though....what on earth has al qaida got to do with Iraq?

Mary

[bigeddy]

Hi everyone!

I posted (#107) a response to Born free's post in the 'Does Evil Exist' thread. Born Free and I would like your comments. I needed to post a new thread about it because I felt that the thread was now being used only by Miss Taken, aether, Dancinfree and I. And Born Free did want some comments from all of you. And I also think that the discussion needs to be opened up for general comment and you should notice it. Take care out there and have fun this weekend! :)

A couple of things, one that is a response to the above and some feedback for Why Me. The other is something I wanted to say on the "evil" thread that pertains to the discussion of government.

1. Through my time in the churh I got very tired of people telling me what I "should" do. I have also seen too many depression cases that hinged on a huge list of "shoulds". So, I get very sensitive when anyone uses the should word. When I read the above post I reacted strongly to the last line about how we "should" notice the comments on the thread. I don't believe I "should" do any such thing. I can if I choose or I can avoid it altogether if that is my choice. Why me, you may desire people to take notice of it and that is okay w/me if you address it as such; "I would like some more people to take a look at it and give me some feedback." Telling post mos what they "should" do is like telling a recovering addict that she should have a drink and chill out. Should implies some kind of rule or expectation by an authority and I have no authority for my life but me.

2. As I read the "evil" thread and watched the shift to a discussion of capitalism/socialism I was interested to see people express their opinions and learn from each other. I was not bothered by it and thought each side was presented thoughtfully and well. I did notice some "shoulds" and other indications that the authors were taking a kind of authoritative and dictatorial attitude. Those bothered me but I chalked it up to something that we would address as it went along (and now we are). I think it helps post mos and others who are struggling to reclaim authority for their life to be free from that same kind of abuse. As for me, my motto at one point of coming out of moism was "Authoritarianism sucks!"

As to the notion regarding governmental systems; I would like to bring up the point of developmental readiness. As far as a debate about which system is correct, or best, or whatever; it seems to me that we have to look at the developmental stage of those being governed. I teach about "phase appropriate parenting" when discussing adolescent psychology. This referes to the notion that parenting must shift to match the phase the child is in at the time. I would not want to parent my 16 year old the same as I would my 7 year old. They are in different phases.

I am enamored of the theories of Claire Graves. He started the "spiral dynamics" theory and, since I love developmental theories that seem to reflect "things as they really are", I like his ideas.

Spiral dynamics teaches that we all develop along some important lines that speak to our ways of coping with life situations. Developmentally we may be at his "red" stage and will need a more dictatorial kind of governing. We may be at a "yellow" stage and will absolutely be ruined by that kind of governance. So, in any discussion of governmental systems we can be more effective, IMHO, by addressing the developmental stage of those being governed.

I would personally love to live in a socialistic system if the other citizens were at levels where this type governance would be a blessing for them. If all in the society were at a "green" level or above, it would work well. But, if most of those being governed were at a "red" (personal power orientation) or "blue" (polarized black and white, law orientation (taliban style)) level it would be a disaster.

So, maybe we can be more productive if we discuss government from the standpoint of developmental readiness.

Ed

[why me]

A couple of things, one that is a response to the above and some feedback for Why Me. The other is something I wanted to say on the "evil" thread that pertains to the discussion of government.

1. Through my time in the churh I got very tired of people telling me what I "should" do. I have also seen too many depression cases that hinged on a huge list of "shoulds". So, I get very sensitive when anyone uses the should word. When I read the above post I reacted strongly to the last line about how we "should" notice the comments on the thread. I don't believe I "should" do any such thing. I can if I choose or I can avoid it altogether if that is my choice. Why me, you may desire people to take notice of it and that is okay w/me if you address it as such; "I would like some more people to take a look at it and give me some feedback." Telling post mos what they "should" do is like telling a recovering addict that she should have a drink and chill out. Should implies some kind of rule or expectation by an authority and I have no authority for my life but me.

2. As I read the "evil" thread and watched the shift to a discussion of capitalism/socialism I was interested to see people express their opinions and learn from each other. I was not bothered by it and thought each side was presented thoughtfully and well. I did notice some "shoulds" and other indications that the authors were taking a kind of authoritative and dictatorial attitude. Those bothered me but I chalked it up to something that we would address as it went along (and now we are). I think it helps post mos and others who are struggling to reclaim authority for their life to be free from that same kind of abuse. As for me, my motto at one point of coming out of moism was "Authoritarianism sucks!"

As to the notion regarding governmental systems; I would like to bring up the point of developmental readiness. As far as a debate about which system is correct, or best, or whatever; it seems to me that we have to look at the developmental stage of those being governed. I teach about "phase appropriate parenting" when discussing adolescent psychology. This referes to the notion that parenting must shift to match the phase the child is in at the time. I would not want to parent my 16 year old the same as I would my 7 year old. They are in different phases.

I am enamored of the theories of Claire Graves. He started the "spiral dynamics" theory and, since I love developmental theories that seem to reflect "things as they really are", I like his ideas.

Spiral dynamics teaches that we all develop along some important lines that speak to our ways of coping with life situations. Developmentally we may be at his "red" stage and will need a more dictatorial kind of governing. We may be at a "yellow" stage and will absolutely be ruined by that kind of governance. So, in any discussion of governmental systems we can be more effective, IMHO, by addressing the developmental stage of those being governed.

I would personally love to live in a socialistic system if the other citizens were at levels where this type governance would be a blessing for them. If all in the society were at a "green" level or above, it would work well. But, if most of those being governed were at a "red" (personal power orientation) or "blue" (polarized black and white, law orientation (taliban style)) level it would be a disaster.

So, maybe we can be more productive if we discuss government from the standpoint of developmental readiness.

Ed

I put the word should there because Born Free was looking for a general discussion about my fanatical belief in socialism. I could have let it his comments just sit there but I felt that no one was actually reading the thread anymore and I wanted to have a general discussion about what he wrote. And so this is why I put the word should in the thread because it was important for me to know how people felt about the issue that Born Free what about.

But of course bigeddy there are things in life that we should do. We should obey the traffic laws. We shouldn't drink and drive. We shouldn't abuse other human beings. We should respect human difference etc. Without some 'shoulds' there could be a generalized anarchy in societies and I am not sure if that would benefit anyone. How do you handle a boss who tells you what you should do? But I understand what you mean in your post. But it can be quite daunting to always read over the post I just wrote in search of a word that could or may offend, not to mention trying to catch all the spellings mistakes in my posts before a post. And even now believe it or not I changed a you to a I because of Born Free's distaste of the word 'you'.
But I am trying to be super careful because I know that I 'should' be respectful of all people who are in this forum.... :)

[bigeddy]

I think there are 2 issues here that are important. First is the issue of development (again, sorry for beating that horse one more time :p .) While I agree that if all in a society choose to act in a way that is more pro-social, things will function more smoothily, I am even more interested in their motives for doing so because this speaks to development. If my son obeys me because he follows my "shoulds" I am concerned--very concerned because he is 23 years old. If he were 4 and obeying my "shoulds" I would be okay with that. When he was 7 or 8 I wanted him to start asking me why he should obey the traffic rules and I told him that if I cannot make it make sense to him then he "should not" obey me. I did want him to trust me but that trust only works as long as my teaching is founded on something other than my own capricious whims.

I taught with a teacher who used to say "If the prophet told me to eat speckled eggs, I would eat speckled eggs." He loved the shoulds that came from an authority figure. He wanted each student to surrender her/his authority to the pulpit idiots. I don't want to foster that in anyone older than 6. So, in this forum I will avoid the "should" word because I respect the developmental level of the readers. I was not offended at the word should in Why me's post. I invite everyone to look at their use of that word as an indication of where they are at developmentally. Tell me the reasons; the consequences of a certain behavior and then let me be the one to determine what I "should" do. Spencer told me, when I returned home from my mishie, that I "should" get married, start a family and then get educated--in that order. I obeyed because I "should". I had surrendered my authority to an old fart behind a pulpit. What an idiotic act that has led to many problems in my life. I have been angry at times because I let him tell me what I should do when I was developmentally ready to act in my own name.

Look at the way momos pray. In the name of someone else. Why? I was taught that I had to pray in the name of Jesus because I had no standing before God (basically). Yet, this god loves me, but gives me no standing in his eyes. That is nuts. It speaks of the degree of authoritarianism in moland. It speaks of the developmental level that moism inhabits. That developmental level, IMO, is wonderful for small children but not for me, not for you and not for any adult, because that is where a small child is AT. We are not.

So, Why me, tell me what you think and why you think that and let me decide what I should do. Tell me the benefits of reading this or that post and let me decide. To tell me what I "should" do speaks to your level of development and speaks to the level you may think I am at. I don't need you to tell me what I should or should not do. I do value your input regarding the pros and cons of socialism and other governmental systems because you seem to be quite knowlegable about those and your posts regarding them make me think and refine my understandings. Thanks.

The second point has to do with this issue of where we each are developmentally. When I say that a person's writing, their ways of expressing their opinions (their way of doing it is often more indicative of their developmental level than what they say) tell me much about where they are at. So, I gave the feedback I did, not because I was offended but as an invitation for others to examine their own level of development.

If my boss deals with me by giving me "shoulds" it tells me of her developmental level. (She did just that and within a group of professionals it was very destructive, but her level is a TBM (blue level)--so, what else could be expected. She is the last of the TBMs in the old gaurd of our department and she just retired, thank buddha.) To do this with humans who are past that developmental level hinders success, IMO.

I do not want anyone to be so concerned about offending me, or anyone else on this site that they agonize over their posts. I do invite everyone to look at the feedback they get and examine what it may mean about their own level of evolution. If anyone is offended by what is written here it can teach them about their level. It is not possible for anyone to offend me. It is only possible for me to choose to accept offense and then act accordingly. If I see someone act abusively toward another person (particularly one who cannot fully care for themself) I may choose to be offended and then will act out of that sense of indignation. But that will be my choice.

I invite all to do the same.
(Bow your head and say "yes". :D )
(Just look at that degree of authoritarianism :slap: )

Ed

[why me]

I think there are 2 issues here that are important. First is the issue of development (again, sorry for beating that horse one more time :p .) While I agree that if all in a society choose to act in a way that is more pro-social, things will function more smoothily, I am even more interested in their motives for doing so because this speaks to development. If my son obeys me because he follows my "shoulds" I am concerned--very concerned because he is 23 years old. If he were 4 and obeying my "shoulds" I would be okay with that. When he was 7 or 8 I wanted him to start asking me why he should obey the traffic rules and I told him that if I cannot make it make sense to him then he "should not" obey me. I did want him to trust me but that trust only works as long as my teaching is founded on something other than my own capricious whims.

I taught with a teacher who used to say "If the prophet told me to eat speckled eggs, I would eat speckled eggs." He loved the shoulds that came from an authority figure. He wanted each student to surrender her/his authority to the pulpit idiots. I don't want to foster that in anyone older than 6. So, in this forum I will avoid the "should" word because I respect the developmental level of the readers. I was not offended at the word should in Why me's post. I invite everyone to look at their use of that word as an indication of where they are at developmentally. Tell me the reasons; the consequences of a certain behavior and then let me be the one to determine what I "should" do. Spencer told me, when I returned home from my mishie, that I "should" get married, start a family and then get educated--in that order. I obeyed because I "should". I had surrendered my authority to an old fart behind a pulpit. What an idiotic act that has led to many problems in my life. I have been angry at times because I let him tell me what I should do when I was developmentally ready to act in my own name.

Look at the way momos pray. In the name of someone else. Why? I was taught that I had to pray in the name of Jesus because I had no standing before God (basically). Yet, this god loves me, but gives me no standing in his eyes. That is nuts. It speaks of the degree of authoritarianism in moland. It speaks of the developmental level that moism inhabits. That developmental level, IMO, is wonderful for small children but not for me, not for you and not for any adult, because that is where a small child is AT. We are not.

So, Why me, tell me what you think and why you think that and let me decide what I should do. Tell me the benefits of reading this or that post and let me decide. To tell me what I "should" do speaks to your level of development and speaks to the level you may think I am at. I don't need you to tell me what I should or should not do. I do value your input regarding the pros and cons of socialism and other governmental systems because you seem to be quite knowlegable about those and your posts regarding them make me think and refine my understandings. Thanks.

The second point has to do with this issue of where we each are developmentally. When I say that a person's writing, their ways of expressing their opinions (their way of doing it is often more indicative of their developmental level than what they say) tell me much about where they are at. So, I gave the feedback I did, not because I was offended but as an invitation for others to examine their own level of development.

If my boss deals with me by giving me "shoulds" it tells me of her developmental level. (She did just that and within a group of professionals it was very destructive, but her level is a TBM (blue level)--so, what else could be expected. She is the last of the TBMs in the old gaurd of our department and she just retired, thank buddha.) To do this with humans who are past that developmental level hinders success, IMO.

I do not want anyone to be so concerned about offending me, or anyone else on this site that they agonize over their posts. I do invite everyone to look at the feedback they get and examine what it may mean about their own level of evolution. If anyone is offended by what is written here it can teach them about their level. It is not possible for anyone to offend me. It is only possible for me to choose to accept offense and then act accordingly. If I see someone act abusively toward another person (particularly one who cannot fully care for themself) I may choose to be offended and then will act out of that sense of indignation. But that will be my choice.

I invite all to do the same.
(Bow your head and say "yes". :D )
(Just look at that degree of authoritarianism :slap: )

Ed

I am heading for my vacation tomorrow. I will try to get back to you from the streets of NYC. But this will not be for a couple of days. Thanks for your post. I appreciate your feedback. Take care out there in Utah... I will get back to you soon but right now I need to do some last minute shopping and so I need to get out of this internet cafe fast...bye for now!