Have you got Shulem on ignore because he says rude things? Or is your attention span too short to read the preceding posts in a thread?
It's neither. Or... wait.... maybe my attention span is too short. But in this case, I missed his post and made a mistake.
But thanks for showing us, yet again, how generous you can be.
I think of an eirenic and charitable style of posting as essentially an investment in the possibility of an interesting dialog, by persuading a poster that his or her arguments and evidence will, if put forward clearly and reasonably, be fairly and fully considered.
You have however exceeded your borrowing limit by a long way already, and are way into negative equity territory.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Droopy wrote: As taking you seriously is now quite beyond the realm of possibility, I'll just leave you and the other liberals here to wallow in the productions of a mind saturated with exhibitionistic Gay camp and a kind of cultural necrophilia that revels in perversity and sociocultural degeneration for the sake of its own aesthetic value as a poke in Jesus' eye.
Beyond that, there's hardly anything here worth responding to at all.
Droopy doesn't like being reminded what he's given up in order to maintain his membership.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Yahoo Bot wrote:I might add that one who leaves his wife and children to have sex with another person or group of persons is a fraud and a mountebank. In nearly any culture. Orientation is irrelevant. Mr. Osbourne had the capacity to live the truth. He lived a lie.
Why he chooses to make his reprehensible personal life a matter of public discourse is odd.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Divorce and abandoning your kids is evil, much the more so to do boys. If he excuses his conduct because your hero Joseph Smith did it, he is much more the evil one.
The lesson that Yahoo Bot is trying to impart here is that it's better be a serial adulterer than get a divorce to be with someone else. That's classical Mormonism.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
why me wrote:Churches that have promoted same sex marriage and the gay lifestyle are in decline. The more conservative churches are becoming larger. People in general do not want churches to be jellyfish in the world, being swayed here and there on the ocean of life until they end up on the beach taking their last breath.
This sounds like an opinion formed on the basis of some serious research data - please can you share the source with us?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Droopy wrote:... I'll just leave you and the other liberals here to wallow in the productions of a mind saturated with exhibitionistic Gay camp and a kind of cultural necrophilia that revels in perversity and sociocultural degeneration for the sake of its own aesthetic value as a poke in Jesus' eye.
Beyond that, there's hardly anything here worth responding to at all.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
I think of an eirenic and charitable style of posting as essentially an investment in the possibility of an interesting dialog, by persuading a poster that his or her arguments and evidence will, if put forward clearly and reasonably, be fairly and fully considered.
You have however exceeded your borrowing limit by a long way already, and are way into negative equity territory.
I see. You can't be generous because I don't meet your posting standards. Got it. Do you even know what generous means?
Frankly, I couldn't care less how generous you are. I just find it interesting that you are not. Most people are, you've chosen otherwise. Fine by me.
Yes, the stupidest part of the LDS law of chastity is the ban on touching yourself.
Not only are homosexuals expected to live without sexual companionship their entire life (unless they give heterosexuality a go) they are expected to never have an orgasm (on purpose) thier entire life!
That, my friends, is unhealthy.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Droopy wrote:Is this all to imply that you, Paul, are a male homosexual? I'm asking this to make sure you are not just being your usual, provocative self, and are being serious in making these claims publicly about yourself.
For future reference, I don't want to make any such assertions about you that you would not accept as accurate.
Actually... you don't know anything about the hereafter. No one does. You don't know if there even IS a hereafter. You just hope there is, and that is conforms to whatever you've been taught.
Another one of those not "knowing" things.
Somehow, I think I always suspected that you would eventually sink all the way into full blown secularist skepticism (if not a kind of solipsism) and hold forth with logically convoluted statements such that you "know" certain ontological and metaphysical truths (that others don't know any of them) while at the very same time claiming that no one can know such things.
Such, alas, are the further bitter fruits of apostasy, and low hanging fruit at that. Intellectual deterioration follows spiritual and moral deterioration in a process of cascading debasement.
Why not turn back, Harmony, and reenter the light?
I see that Droopy has taken the position that someone who says that what happens when we die is unknown only says so because of intellectual deterioration that follows moral deterioration.
