You just don't get it, come back in three days!

[_solomarineris]

Ray, perhaps you can explain what I did to warrant a suspension?

I'm still not sure.

Do you think possibly that calling God irrational, a tyrant, cruel, petty, and gluttonous might have had something to do with it, just maybe?

FYI;
We are humans with brains which can process information.
We are not Sheep nor Bordercollies.
We do not need to be hearded, led or guided, if we don't want to.
If those idiots cannot tolerate having an opinion of God they need to live in a marxist-leninist state,
work for Pravda (which means truth).
Not in United States of America.

[_guy sajer]

Ray, perhaps you can explain what I did to warrant a suspension?

I'm still not sure.

Do you think possibly that calling God irrational, a tyrant, cruel, petty, and gluttonous might have had something to do with it, just maybe?

Even if it's true?

I mean, read the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon (focus on the part in 3rd Nephi in which Christ exults in the number of people he's caused to be swallowed up by the earth, burnt, or drown--he's a loving guy allright, just don't pay heed to collateral damage to his love). The God of the Christian Scriptures fits even one of those definitions to a T (save maybe gluttonous).

[_Scottie]

Ray, perhaps you can explain what I did to warrant a suspension?

I'm still not sure.

Do you think possibly that calling God irrational, a tyrant, cruel, petty, and gluttonous might have had something to do with it, just maybe?

You mean calling God what he really is? Maybe.

[_Scottie]

The God of the Christian Scriptures fits even one of those definitions to a T (save maybe gluttonous).

Well, except as was pointed out so very many times on the thread at MAD, how LDS justify spending boatloads of money on their temples because God commanded Solomon to do the same thing.

Seems gluttonous to me.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

spending boatloads of money on their temples because God commanded Solomon to do the same thing.

There is some Biblical evidence that God never really wanted a Temple in the first place. According to 2 Sam. 7:2, the Temple was actually King David's idea. He says to the prophet Nathan, "See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains."

This curtain can be seen as the tabernacle Israel carried with them through their sojourn in the desert.

The measurements of the Holy Place in the Temple imply that this same tabernacle - this curtain containing the ark - dwelt within the Temple for a time during the history of Israel.

The Lord replies through the prophet:

2 Samuel 7:5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?

6 Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.

7 In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?

Is essense, He asks, "in all my time dwelling with you, have I ever asked you to build me a house?"

Despite God's apparent disapproval, He promises to allow David's son to build a Temple and to bless it.

God goes on to destroy the Temple - twice - when the people rely on their own work in the Temple more so than what it represents, the mercy of God.

[_the road to hana]

spending boatloads of money on their temples because God commanded Solomon to do the same thing.

There is some Biblical evidence that God never really wanted a Temple in the first place. According to 2 Sam. 7:2, the Temple was actually King David's idea. He says to the prophet Nathan, "See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains."

This curtain can be seen as the tabernacle Israel carried with them through their sojourn in the desert.

The measurements of the Holy Place in the Temple imply that this same tabernacle - this curtain containing the ark - dwelt within the Temple for a time during the history of Israel.

The Lord replies through the prophet:

2 Samuel 7:5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?

6 Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.

7 In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?

Is essense, He asks, "in all my time dwelling with you, have I ever asked you to build me a house?"

Despite God's apparent disapproval, He promises to allow David's son to build a Temple and to bless it.

God goes on to destroy the Temple - twice - when the people rely on their own work in the Temple more so than what it represents, the mercy of God.

Not only that, there even seems to be a sense of cosmic comedy in God saying to David, "You're going to build me a house???" (*cue deific laughter*).

[_charity]

FYI;
We are humans with brains which can process information.
We are not Sheep nor Bordercollies.
We do not need to be hearded, led or guided, if we don't want to.
If those idiots cannot tolerate having an opinion of God they need to live in a marxist-leninist state,
work for Pravda (which means truth).
Not in United States of America.

We are humans with brain who can decide what kind of environment we want to live in. You want to tromp around in mud, that's your choice. The MA&D board is "our house." You want to visit, us in our house, you clean up or you can't come in.

This "house" is a different enviroment. You don't have worry about tracking mud in on the carpets here, so anyone can come in with dirty feet.

You mean calling God what he really is? Maybe.

Even if this is your view, you know it is offensive to LDS. So when visiting in their "house" you can refrain from being rude. And rude is the most mild term I can think of for what you did over on that board.

You don't seem to understand the responsbility a guest has. The guest does not go into a home, spit on the floor, pup his feet up on the couch, and yell at the hostes to bring him a beer, and make it quick. You can do that in your own house if you want to, and since that is what you do as a visitor, I assume that is what you do as man of your own house. But not as a quest. You put on your best manners and treat your host and his house with respect.

If you don't, he has every right to ask you to leave.

[_Scottie]

FYI;
We are humans with brains which can process information.
We are not Sheep nor Bordercollies.
We do not need to be hearded, led or guided, if we don't want to.
If those idiots cannot tolerate having an opinion of God they need to live in a marxist-leninist state,
work for Pravda (which means truth).
Not in United States of America.

We are humans with brain who can decide what kind of environment we want to live in. You want to tromp around in mud, that's your choice. The MA&D board is "our house." You want to visit, us in our house, you clean up or you can't come in.

This "house" is a different enviroment. You don't have worry about tracking mud in on the carpets here, so anyone can come in with dirty feet.

You mean calling God what he really is? Maybe.

Even if this is your view, you know it is offensive to LDS. So when visiting in their "house" you can refrain from being rude. And rude is the most mild term I can think of for what you did over on that board.

You don't seem to understand the responsbility a guest has. The guest does not go into a home, spit on the floor, pup his feet up on the couch, and yell at the hostes to bring him a beer, and make it quick. You can do that in your own house if you want to, and since that is what you do as a visitor, I assume that is what you do as man of your own house. But not as a quest. You put on your best manners and treat your host and his house with respect.

If you don't, he has every right to ask you to leave.

I can accept that. I was a little more, um, animated than normal on that thread.

[_Moniker]

I actually agree with Charity about the different boards.

I view MAD as if I'm visiting at grandma's house and I have to be considerate to her sensibilities.

Uh, I was going to say what analogy I think of with this board -- then thought better of it.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think GoodK is lucky to get only three days.

Because we have high standards for discussion and debate, we are privileged to have several high profile scholars and apologists who post here. We ask that you respect their dignity and the investment that they have put into their research so that we can continue to enjoy their participation. We make no claim that everyone will be treated equally. Posters are only as valuable as their contributions to the board are valuable. We have zero tolerance for any comments that invade the privacy or attack the personal dignity of public figures who disclose their identity. (My emphasis)

Ah, yes. Right. This is why your endless comments about anonymity are a heap of dung, Ray. "Attack the personal dignity"? What does that even mean? See, what you, juliann, and others seem to think is that your use of your in real life name suddenly endows you with this magic cloak of protection, and a sense of entitlement. You think that using the in real life name means you should be special treatment, and that others should have to bow down to you, and so on. Obviously, this MADrule baloney doesn't go both ways. Pahoran doles out all kinds of nastiness to Dan Vogel, Sethbag, CKSalmon, CaliforniaKid and others who employ their in real life names (I have seen Selek and Smac and others behave nastily, too), but are they ever chastised for their refusal to respect "dignity"? This is just yet another of the many MADite hypocrisies that sails right over your Neanderthal head.