Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_Buffalo]

[_Yoda]

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.

??? I thought we were in the Shire.

[_Simon Belmont]

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?

I didn't argue that at all. I argued the opposite.

This is what Moplogetics does to a person.

This is what an anti-Mormon agenda 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.

It was your position, of course, that the church teaches that he physically felt the pain of rape; a question to which you answered in the affirmative, twice.

But, if by "physically" you didn't really mean "physically," then how are we to determine exactly what your position is?

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.

It doesn't. It excludes the savior of humankind being physically raped. It didn't happen. The church doesn't teach that it happened. It never has, and never will.

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.

Again, if you didn't agree to the word "physical," just what word did you agree to when I asked and specifically stated "physical?" How is anyone to know what your position is when you keep flipping it from "physical" to "we don't know" to "perhaps he imagined it?"

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.

I do not discount what the brethren say, quite the opposite. By misrepresenting what they say to seemingly support your absurd positions, you discount what they say constantly.

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.

Some critics are right sometimes, but you rarely are.

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?

The coup has already been struck, long ago. You just won't accept it. In any case, here is where you said that the church teaches that Jesus was physically raped (emp. mine):

It would help your case if you'd give a straight answer to the question. Instead, you dodge.

Let's try again:

Do you, Darth J. Believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and believes that Jesus felt both the physical and mental pains of being raped from all rape cases from the beginning of time until the end?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Yes.

So, while you go around the board misrepresenting my church, just remember that you are going to be held accountable for it, whether you accept this defeat or not.

[_Buffalo]

[_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?

I didn't argue that at all. I argued the opposite.

Oh. That must explain the last several pages of this thread.

This is what Moplogetics does to a person.

This is what an anti-Mormon agenda does to a person.

Exactly. A person with an anti-Mormon agenda will try to get you to post as often and as long as possible, and hope that your posts are read by as many people as possible.

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.

It was your position, of course, that the church teaches that he physically felt the pain of rape; a question to which you answered in the affirmative, twice.

But, if by "physically" you didn't really mean "physically," then how are we to determine exactly what your position is?

Gee, I don't know. I guess it must be that he felt the physical sensation, but how that would be possible, the Church does not say.

You know, if you can't allow that there might be some miraculous, metaphysical way for a God to experience another person's physical sensations in a way that is beyond our comprehension, then maybe Christianity just isn't your thing. Or philosophy. Really, Simon, Kishkumen and I are trying to throw you a bone. We hope you are lying about having a master's in philosophy. It is too pathetic to contemplate that you might be telling the truth.

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.

It doesn't. It excludes the savior of humankind being physically raped. It didn't happen. The church doesn't teach that it happened. It never has, and never will.

Well, you don't know if the Church "never will" teach anything, since it is lead by continuing revelation. In the meantime, why don't you just come right out and tell everyone where I said that LDS doctrine is that in the context of the Atonement, the only way Jesus could "feel" the physical pain of anything, including a woman's rape, is if it mechanically, physically happened personally to him?

While you're proving once and for all that your jihad in this thread is not the most pathetically hysterical straw man ever posted on a message board, let's review one more time the original statement I made, wherein I distinguished between actually experiencing rape and vicariously experiencing it, necessarily implying that Jesus felt it in a way that is distinctive from literally, mechanically being raped:

Christ suffered this woman's afflictions so that even though she actually experienced the pain and trauma of being raped, he vicariously experienced it, too, and that way they both suffer, but someday in the afterlife Christ can make it so she isn't suffering anymore, even though Christ himself is still suffering because he presumably remembers vicariously experiencing it.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... a&start=63

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.

Again, if you didn't agree to the word "physical," just what word did you agree to when I asked and specifically stated "physical?" How is anyone to know what your position is when you keep flipping it from "physical" to "we don't know" to "perhaps he imagined it?"

See, the thing is that anyone who is not on a hysterical Moplogist jihad can clearly understand that we are talking about a religious miracle, and in that context, experiencing the physical "feeling" would not require literally undergoing the mechanical, physical act.

"I don't know how Jesus vicariously felt another person's physical pain" is not flipping. You are also insisting without evidence that "imagined" means "fake." That you, claiming to have a master's in philosophy, would insist that "imagined" means "fake" is extraordinarily shallow thinking, particularly in the context of a God taking upon Himself the pains, tribulations, and sins of the entire human race. This is the same Jesus who said that if a man looks on a woman in lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. Jesus Himself taught that in the realm of spirituality and righteousness, things we imagine can be "real" (otherwise, how could lusting after a woman but not actually having sex with her be a sin?).

But, as I already said, I'm sure that if you ever meet Richard G. Scott, he will find himself edified when you tell him that his statement about Jesus "vicariously" suffering our pains is a gross misrepresentation of LDS doctrine.

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.

I do not discount what the brethren say, quite the opposite. By misrepresenting what they say to seemingly support your absurd positions, you discount what they say constantly.

It is not my fault that you find the Church's teachings about the Atonement to be absurd.

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.

Some critics are right sometimes, but you rarely are.

Indeed, who can withstand the might of, "Nuh-uh!!!!!"?

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?

The coup has already been struck, long ago. You just won't accept it.

I take it, then, that you are not going to support your characterization of what I said at any time in the near future.

In any case, here is where you said that the church teaches that Jesus was physically raped (emp. mine):

It would help your case if you'd give a straight answer to the question. Instead, you dodge.

Let's try again:

Do you, Darth J. Believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and believes that Jesus felt both the physical and mental pains of being raped from all rape cases from the beginning of time until the end?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Yes.

Right. The issue, however, is where I said that the Church teaches that Jesus had to be literally, mechanically, physically raped in order to "feel" that physical pain.

But you already acknowledged that you have no intention of demonstrating where I might have said that.

So, while you go around the board misrepresenting

Begging the question.

my church,

You mean FAIR?

just remember that you are going to be held accountable for it, whether you accept this defeat or not.

Allahu Akbar!!!!!!

[_Blixa]

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.

Oh, no kidding. But, still.

[_Corpsegrinder]

He keeps talking about Jesus being penetrated by trillions of penises. Not a particularly reverent treatment of the Savior, I must say.

And yet it's somehow, strangely, arousing.

[_just me]

This thread is one for the history books. OMG

[_Blixa]

This thread is one for the history books. OMG

I know. Poor Jesus.

[_sock puppet]

He has personally experienced the specific circumstances of whatever was physically done to him during His own life.

Thus, I like Jesus have also personally experienced the specific circumstances of whatever has been done to me during my own life.

Devaluing what Jesus did to that extent, makes me a saviour too. Hot dog! No cross for me, thank you.