DiscussMormonism.com

Trevor wrote:

jskains wrote:It is rather hard with the ugly flame war. So far I am a suicidal, depressed, diabetic who is mentally ill because I posted a Video Blog on Youtube.

JMS

Well, it was a pretty crappy video!

An example of the maturity, Thanks for the sample.

JMS

jskains wrote:An example of the maturity, Thanks for the sample.

An example of no sense of humor, which we get in practically every post you write.

jskains wrote:

josh,

I see that you have posted again recently. Would it be asking too much for you to participate in this thread that you started? My first question was posted to you above.

Thanks,
LSD

It is rather hard with the ugly flame war. So far I am a suicidal, depressed, diabetic who is mentally ill because I posted a Video Blog on Youtube.

JMS

It appears that you’re dodging the questions Jersey Girl has posed for you. Why is that? What you state here appears irrelevant to the issue before you.

JAK

Trevor wrote:

jskains wrote:An example of the maturity, Thanks for the sample.

An example of no sense of humor, which we get in practically every post you write.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I get it.. Calling me a ignorant combative mentally ill diabetic, futhered by two smear campaigns from Mr. Scratchy and Dr. Crackerjack were all just a big humorous joke?

Damn, am I just stupid. I'm sorry. Jokes on me.. Hahaha...

*eyeroll*

JMS

Josh,

When someone makes a snarcky comment, instead of addressing the comment, try addressing the reason they made the comment.

Gaz

Gazelam wrote:When someone makes a snarcky comment, instead of addressing the comment, try addressing the reason they made the comment.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. From Josh's perspective would he be addressing the reason when he says that they make snarky comments because they're angry and obsessed? Somehow I don't think that's what you meant--otherwise I imagine you would have told Josh to only focus on the reasons instead of also addressing the snarky comments.

Something like that. I'm not the most eloquent writer, which is why I tend to quote others alot.

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Imwashingmypirate wrote:Might I say your post has made me think. WOW. I always thought homosexuality is disgusting and wrong but when I look at your prison statement, it is actually true. People (especially men) must fulfil their sexual needs somehow. It is instinct.

They could always masturbate....(talk about trying to decipher the lesser of two evils:masturbation or male homosexual sex?)

This is more sarcasm is it Bond?

If not, why do you characterize as “evils”?

Why not call these distinctions between joys?

JAK

JAK wrote:

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Imwashingmypirate wrote:Might I say your post has made me think. WOW. I always thought homosexuality is disgusting and wrong but when I look at your prison statement, it is actually true. People (especially men) must fulfil their sexual needs somehow. It is instinct.

They could always masturbate....(talk about trying to decipher the lesser of two evils:masturbation or male homosexual sex?)

This is more sarcasm is it Bond?

If not, why do you characterize as “evils”?

Why not call these distinctions between joys?

JAK

Because the LDS church defines them as evil and sin.

harmony wrote:

JAK wrote:

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Imwashingmypirate wrote:Might I say your post has made me think. WOW. I always thought homosexuality is disgusting and wrong but when I look at your prison statement, it is actually true. People (especially men) must fulfil their sexual needs somehow. It is instinct.

They could always masturbate....(talk about trying to decipher the lesser of two evils:masturbation or male homosexual sex?)

This is more sarcasm is it Bond?

If not, why do you characterize as “evils”?

Why not call these distinctions between joys?

JAK

Because the LDS church defines them as evil and sin.

The LDS church is irrelevant to definitions. Any and every religious group makes up its own mythology. Those mythologies do not agree on many aspects of “sin” and a wide variety of other claims.

Your statement is hardly an address of causality.

The LDS church calls drinking coffee “sin.” It’s equally irrelevant.

Is war “sin”? Is participation in a military system as an instrument of death “sin”? Some religious myths would say it is. The Quakers, for example, would call deliberate killing of people “sin” at the order of a goverment.

Sex or sexual experiences are hardly on the same scale as deliberate killing of other humans for any reason.

Hence, any notion of “sin” is relative. It’s relative to time, to place, and to circumstances in any religious myth concept.

JAK