End goal?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Moniker wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
Moniker wrote:Perhaps, I've only absorbed the beauty of Christianity (charity, love, forgiveness) that appeals to me

I've tried to absorb only the beauty of skepticism, but it's made me more cynical--or maybe I'm that way naturally and I haven't absorbed anything positive or negative.


Well, I certainly feel rather cynical -- and I've pretty much always been a skeptic. It's spending too much time with those that proclaim to be loving Christians that act with little empathy and hatred that has created a sense of horror and makes me recoil often. I don't expect much from Schmo, Merc, etc... Yet, those that say they know Christ that then act in such hateful ways (calling people evil is just horrid!) makes me cringe. I don't know how else to say that.

I think any criticism of the Church is taken as a personal attack -- and I can actually understand that. No one enjoys having their beliefs ridiculed. Yet, if you are someone that wants to live with love, charity, empathy, and spread the light of Christ and you end up spending hours on bulletin boards that does not further that goal I would think that you should assess what you're really doing.


Yeah, I've been thinking about leaving, not sure yet.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

charity wrote:And when there are some who display that anger, what do you think made them angry? People lying about them, their leaders, their church. People mocking their deeply held religious beliefs.

Charity, did you happen to see the abhorrent posts that Wil Schryver made to Runtu over there? Completely unprovoked and incredibly out of line. What was his punishment? The mods left a note that said "Watch the personal attacks". Any one of us would have been banned in a heartbeat!!

This happens more than not, I'm afraid.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

amantha wrote:
wenglund wrote:Were I to confuse classificatory divisions with "stereotyping", and mistakenly assume that my use of the term "inter-faith" was exclusionary of "extra-faith", then I might see your point. As it is, I don't. But, you are free to be insulted by whatever, and regardless how benign the comment. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


It is a mistake to assume that there is a difference between "inter-faith" and "extra-faith"?


No. There is a difference. "Inter-faith" is the superset, and "extra-faith is a subset.

There's a revelation on your mind set.


I am not sure how your question to me, itself, is somehow revelatory of my mind--that is, unless you had already assumed an answer prior to asking. . . .in which case, you know what they say about "assuming"? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

amantha wrote:It is a mistake to assume that there is a difference between "inter-faith" and "extra-faith"? There's a revelation on your mind set.

You too. I would respectfully request that you be a little more picky and choosy about how much material you quote in your replies. Including an entire previous thread in a post when most of it is irrelevant and not being directly responded to, is annoying to the other participants.

Sorry to be a board nanny, but someone's gotta say it.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Skepticism is usually not beautiful.

I really disagree with this. Quite a bit...
Not that that matters much mind :)


I've always found more to love in people who have a passion for something. They're the people who are truly alive. Some are also skeptics but I've never found anything inherently beautiful about being skeptical. Like I said, sometimes it's smart but there should really be higher values and loves in people than that.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

charity wrote:
Moniker wrote:
You said the unofficial name for the course you taught was "nuts and sluts". Why bring that up? What was the point of that? That is NOT the official course name -- yet you brought that into the conversation. You apparently thought of the course in that manner since you brought it on the board. Why did you do that Charity? You saying women that fit under the definition of that class are "sluts"!

I said in that post that I NEVER used that term. Thnat was in indication that I disagreed with that view. Please read m more carefully.


Why bring that up at all? What was the point? There must have been a reason?! Please explain to me how that is appropriate?


And yes, there are women who chose their own interests over their children. A strong woman would put her children first. So yes, they are weak. Protecting children is what women do. Who do you think enjoys seeing children abused? Satan.

Moniker wrote:[
You said women that are with abusive men are weak and dumb! Do you think that is charitable? Compassionate? WHERE IS YOUR EMPATHY!? I am boggled by your lack of concern!


You are mischaraterizing my position from a very long thread. This is not the place to rehash it. One of my daughters was in an abusive relationship, as I mentioned on that thread. I am certainly not without empathy. Anyone who is interested in this can go back and get the real picture, not your short squib biased summarization.


Perhaps, I read it in a way you didn't intend. If so, I apologize. But, then again, if you're coming across as crass and unsympathetic you may want to consider that.

Riiiight. That's why there was 20+ pages of mocking the descendents of the MMM massacre. Didn't see the descendents riling the good LDS folk on the board. Nope they put themselves into a frothy, frenzy of angst and hatred all by their lonesome! Who was goaded them to anger?


Again, you mischaracterize the subject of the posts. There was no frothy, frenzy. I think what set up that topic was the outrageous "September Dawn." Or did you vote it one of the best films ever made?


No! I actually was on threads talking about what a poor film it would be most likely and that it would most likely drift into obscurity. I was also upset at the entire drama lovestory being intertwined into the plot. I was no fan of that film! The thread was specifically about the descendents of MMM and there were people mocking the descendents!


Sorry to tell you, but there are evil people in the world. I can provide you with a list if you would like. And there are people who follow Satan. How do I know there are people who are evil? My gosh, look at what they do. Kill. Rape. Torture. Abuse. What do I know of their hearts and their lives? Sorry. They hurt people. That's evil.


I am quite aware of horrible acts that man can committ against fellow man. Yet, referring to the people on this board as evil is inappropriate and you have no way to paint with such a broad brush. Do you have any knowledge that the posters here kill, rape, torture and abuse people? If not you should really refrain from calling them evil imho.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

The Nehor wrote:
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Skepticism is usually not beautiful.

I really disagree with this. Quite a bit...
Not that that matters much mind :)


I've always found more to love in people who have a passion for something. They're the people who are truly alive. Some are also skeptics but I've never found anything inherently beautiful about being skeptical. Like I said, sometimes it's smart but there should really be higher values and loves in people than that.


I wonder, was Joseph skeptical about the claims preachers in his area were making? If he wasn't skeptical, would it be just as beautiful?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

The Nehor wrote:
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Skepticism is usually not beautiful.

I really disagree with this. Quite a bit...
Not that that matters much mind :)


I've always found more to love in people who have a passion for something. They're the people who are truly alive. Some are also skeptics but I've never found anything inherently beautiful about being skeptical. Like I said, sometimes it's smart but there should really be higher values and loves in people than that.


Passion and skepticism can both be part of a critical faculty, Nehor. The "they're the people who are truly alive" stuff is pretty condescending.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

The Nehor wrote:I've always found more to love in people who have a passion for something

Why does skepticism mean 'Doesn't have passion for things...'?

but there should really be higher values and loves in people than that.

Why is skepticism incompatible with 'higher values'?

If your just talking about trends you've noticed in people, then fair enough.
But it's almost like your trying to point at inherent, fundemental conflicts. I can't see them myself...
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Sethbag wrote:Sorry to be a board nanny, but someone's gotta say it.


What!!! I thought Runtu was the resident net nanny. Isn't that what he tells us he's told? 8)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Post Reply