Easter Greeting

[_Jason Bourne]

.

.
Jason Bourne:

………………… blah, blah, blah ………………….

Is it really possible that anyone can be quite as obtuse as is this guy?

The fact that you think the words of Christ are obtuse speaks very loud about what type of a Christian disciple you are. But keep at it. I am happy to turn the other cheek, You see I believe Jesus meant the things he said and the there was not a special exclusion for wanna be defenders of the faith.

[_rcrocket]

You are not up to it.

You don't understand, I have already acknowledged that I don't possess Scratch's intellect, and I freely admit I had to look up the dictionary for some words he used. While I agreed with some things he pointed out, I think he missed a lot in other areas. A lot.

I don't think you noticed the fact that Scratch knows almost nothing of Church history or doctrine. Didn't anybody ever notice that?

His mission on these boards was to ridicule the apologists, to take what they say, twist their words against them and humiliate them. That took some data mining -- not into Signature Books or hoary old works, but in the archives of ZLMB, alt-mormon, FAIR and the like. Along the way he picked up a few nuggets and turds relating to the Church. He didn't' get these from reference works but from posts. I tested him frequently and he just avoided the test of church history and doctrine. (I suspect the only reference work he ever had in his library was one of Quinn's power books.) You might recall that he refused debates with me on the topic, and instead turned my debate request into a debate over something I previously had said or done -- again, looking into my past posts. Pure sophistic rhetoric. Few could see that.

You, however, are burdened with widely-swinging moods and opinions, and occasional inability to control your rants -- almost as if you are meth-fueled at times. You have more of an education in Church history and doctrine. You tend to accept the statements of third party combatants as gospel, as I could see from your brief reference to the Brotherton incident -- in which you truly indicated that you knew little of the substantive issues and where reports stood. You do not possess Scratch's skill at sophistry -- rhetoric for rhetoric's sake (i.e., scoring a psychological point no matter where the merits lie, a foul attribute, in my opinion, but admired by those with no standards or morals [oops, sorry to offend here]).

Stick to your grammar-challenged rants. That's enough to crucify the Lord anew.

[_Ray A]

You, however, are burdened with widely-swinging moods and opinions, and occasional inability to control your rants -- almost as if you are meth-fueled at times. You have more of an education in Church history and doctrine, but just tend to accept the statements of third party combatants as gospel, as I could see from your brief reference to the Brotherton incident -- in which you truly indicated that you knew little of the substantive issues and where reports stood. You do not possess Scratch's skill at sophistry -- rhetoric for rhetoric's sake (i.e., scoring a psychological point no matter where the merits lie, a foul attribute, in my opinion, but admired by those with no standards or morals [oops, sorry to offend here]).

Stick to your grammar-challenged rants.

With all of your knowledge of Church history and doctrine, you are, ultimately, an apologist. Which means you have (not always turn) a blind eye to any serious criticism of your Church. You have shown that time and again in your debates with beastie. Your apologist bias is like the proverbial camel-humps sticking up for all to plainly see.

You should not talk about "moods", when you act like a cry baby over signature lines. And you are a lawyer? You have posted, and retracted, then apologised, then gone back to doing the same things you apologised for. I suspect you should check out for BPD.

You are, after all is said, still a rank, biased apologist with an inability to admit where you are wrong, and judging from past posts, some serious and faith-wavering issues in regard to your personal faith and Church attendance, possibly because you can see just how plainly dumb some Mormon beliefs are. Either that, or you're a liar.

I suspect you have some very real and serious problems with cognitive dissonance, but you cover that with apologetic defenses (where you can avoid the patent absurdities) to reassure yourself that "all is well is Crockett-Land".

You are one confused Mormon cookie. I hope one day you find liberation from your obvious mental prison.

It's worth it, trust me.

[_rcrocket]

With all of your knowledge of Church history and doctrine, you are, ultimately, an apologist. Which means you have (not always turn) a blind eye to any serious criticism of your Church. You have shown that time and again in your debates with beastie. Your apologist bias is like the proverbial camel-humps sticking up for all to plainly see.

You should not talk about "moods", when you act like a cry baby over signature lines. And you are a lawyer? You have posted, and retracted, then apologised, then gone back to doing the same things you apologised for. I suspect you should check out for BPD.

You are, after all is said, still a rank, biased apologist with an inability to admit where you are wrong, and judging from past posts, some serious and faith-wavering issues in regard to your personal faith and Church attendance, possibly because you can see just how plainly dumb some Mormon beliefs are. Either that, or you're a liar.

I suspect you have some very real and serious problems with cognitive dissonance, but you cover that with apologetic defenses (where you can avoid the patent absurdities) to reassure yourself that "all is well is Crockett-Land".

You are one confused Mormon cookie. I hope one day you find liberation from your obvious mental prison.

It's worth it, trust me.

I think I rest my case.

My post was about you. Not me and my failings.

Take that next hit; you'll feel better.

[_Ray A]

I think I rest my case.

My post was about you. Not me and my failings.

I doubly rest my case. LOL.

"One-way Bob".

[_moksha]

I'm aware of the different ecclesiastical calendar. This matter goes far back into antiquity.

Antiquity being in this case, when Rome switched to the Gregorian calendar and the Orthodox stuck with the Julian calendar.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Antiquity being in this case, when Rome switched to the Gregorian calendar and the Orthodox stuck with the Julian calendar.

Actually, there were arguments about the proper date of Easter way back in the earliest Christian centuries. I confess that I've never really seen why it should matter.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am struck that a thread that started out with a well wishing message had degenerated into what it has.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am struck that a thread that started out with a well wishing message had degenerated into what it has.

I know. I commented on that on the previous page.

I've even tried to get it back to the positive a couple of times, but my attempts have failed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

duplicate message