Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_Yoda]

I'm just happy a thread exists with the words "trillions of male penetrations" in it.

What an interesting visual. LOL

[_Kishkumen]

I have news for you: we don't teach or believe that Jesus felt the physical pain of trillions of male penetrations. None of the quotes you provided say that.

Simon, I've said it many times, but it bears repeating right here:

You are an idiot.

[_Simon Belmont]

I don't think my question could be worded any clearer, Chap. I specifically stated physical in my question to DJ, and he replied in the affirmative. So, here we are, and DJ continues to misrepresent the Church by data-mining from LDS.org, then misrepresenting what he finds there.

Asked and answered, as they say.

[_Buffalo]

I don't think my question could be worded any clearer, Chap. I specifically stated physical in my question to DJ, and he replied in the affirmative. So, here we are, and DJ continues to misrepresent the Church by data-mining from LDS.org, then misrepresenting what he finds there.

Asked and answered, as they say.

How dare he quote the leaders. He should make it up as goes, like you do.

[_Themis]

I don't think my question could be worded any clearer, Chap. I specifically stated physical in my question to DJ, and he replied in the affirmative. So, here we are, and DJ continues to misrepresent the Church by data-mining from LDS.org, then misrepresenting what he finds there.

Asked and answered, as they say.

How dare he quote the leaders. He should make it up as goes, like you do.

What's worse is he is now saying data-mining instead of quote mining. He doesn't even know what data-mining is. :)

[_Darth J]

Darth, this doesn't need any food:

You are giving him too much credit, Blixa. He is not trolling; he is serious.

You see, arguing with a Mormon is like arguing with a Lord of the Rings fan. Except that you are not arguing with someone who appreciates the artistic merit of Tolkien's work. You are arguing with someone who believes that he really lives in Middle Earth.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't think my question could be worded any clearer, Chap. I specifically stated physical in my question to DJ, and he replied in the affirmative. So, here we are, and DJ continues to misrepresent the Church by data-mining from LDS.org, then misrepresenting what he finds there.

Asked and answered, as they say.

Are you sure you ever studied philosophy, Belmont? You so rarely give any indication that you have. Certainly you have not here.

[_Chap]

Belmont does not apparently dispute that Jesus 'suffered' and 'experienced' the pain referred to, that is, he felt it.

However, he introduces a new qualification to the discussion - to feel 'physical' pain. But he does not say what the difference is between feeling pain and feeling 'physical' pain. Unless he does that, his tactic is mere meaningless handwaving.

I don't think my question could be worded any clearer, Chap. I specifically stated physical in my question to DJ, and he replied in the affirmative. So, here we are, and DJ continues to misrepresent the Church by data-mining from LDS.org, then misrepresenting what he finds there.

Asked and answered, as they say.

Are you sure you ever studied philosophy, Belmont? You so rarely give any indication that you have. Certainly you have not here.

I can't say that a compulsory course in the kind of nice dry linguistic philosophy they used to do at Oxford in the 1960s (with no escape until they got an acceptable grade in the final exam) would do people like Belmont and Hoops any good, but it would be interesting to try the experiment.

[_Kishkumen]

I can't say that a compulsory course in the kind of nice dry linguistic philosophy they used to do at Oxford in the 1960s (with no escape until they got an acceptable grade in the final exam) would do people like Belmont and Hoops any good, but it would be interesting to try the experiment.

Well his handling of the entire mind/body problem has no apparent coherence to speak of.

[_Darth J]

I wonder if you people reading the board appreciate the entertainment value that Mormon Discussions provides. Where else can you get an ostensibly believing Mormon to argue strenuously that the LDS Church doesn't teach that Jesus Christ suffered all of the pains and afflictions of every man, woman and child?

This is what Moplogetics does to a person.

Is Simon Belmont bearing his testimony about the miraculous, sacred nature of the Atonement? No. He keeps talking about Jesus being penetrated by trillions of penises. Not a particularly reverent treatment of the Savior, I must say.

Is Simon bringing in additional teachings of the Church to expound and clarify the teachings that I have already cited? No. He is attempting to rely on rhetoric. But it is not even rhetoric. He has not explained why anything and everything that a man, woman or child could possibly experience in life excludes a woman experiencing rape. Simon Belmont is presenting pure, unadulterated nuh-uhism at its finest.

And why is Simon doing this? Is he providing anything faith-promoting about the Atonement? No. In fact, he is blaspheming it, giving a limit to its scope that the Church does not, and ridiculing it because he thinks that the only way that Jesus, the God who entered mortality to take our afflictions upon Himself, could suffer the anguish of a woman who is raped would be if He had a vagina and was penetrated trillions of times by penises. That is not religious, spiritual, faith-based thinking, but the thinking of a devout Mopologist.

Is he defending the teachings of the Church? No. He is saying that the words of Church leaders should not be taken at face value. He provides no reason why they should not be, but his Mopologism compels him, from force of habit, to discount what the Bretheren say.

Why, then, is he doing this? For no other reason than the obsessive drive of refusing to acknowledge that a critic of the Church could possibly be right about anything---even the objective, polemically neutral act of quoting official LDS teachings in their proper context.

I don't think my question could be worded any clearer, Chap. I specifically stated physical in my question to DJ, and he replied in the affirmative. So, here we are, and DJ continues to misrepresent the Church by data-mining from LDS.org, then misrepresenting what he finds there.

Asked and answered, as they say.

You know, Simon, if you really wanted to strike the coup de grace, you could just point to where I said that Christ "feeling" the physical sensation of this hypothetical woman's pain would require him to be physically, mechanically raped in the vagina he did not have (as opposed to some metaphysical way that we don't understand).

Why don't you go ahead and show where I said that, or where I said that the Church says that?

In the meantime, let's make sure we us the Simon Belmont Method to explain the teachings of LDS leaders. For example, this:

Since the Savior has suffered anything and everything that we could ever feel or experience, He can help the weak to become stronger. He has personally experienced all of it.

really means this:

Since the Savior has suffered anything and everything that an unmarried male Jew with no children living in Palestine in the First Century according to the circumstances of his immediate environment could experience, He can help the weak become stronger, so long as "the weak" are male, Jewish, not married, without children, and living in Palestine during that particular era of history. He has personally experienced the specific circumstances of whatever was physically done to him during His own life.