Defending Ignorance & Insanity

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Hally McIlrath
_Emeritus
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:12 am

Post by _Hally McIlrath »

Imwashingmypirate wrote:LMNEGWO!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the lady chick dude thingy ma bobbing person who is newwww in here is a sockpuppet.



Erm, are you talking about me...? It's kind of hard to be a sockpuppet, when you're using your own name, which I am.
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

Imwashingmypirate wrote:
chad wrote:We don’t like to be wrong, we don’t like to be shown how ignorant and foolish we truly are, our ego and pride keep us cocooned in the darkness of ignorance and self-certainty.


Are we sure?

I don't mind being wrong, I like to be shown how ignorant and foolish I am, what ego and pride, fear of unknowing keeps me in the darkness of ignorance.

I didn't read it all because I didn't see the point of the during the first paragraph and although I talk a lot of nonsense, I don't really expect someone as yourself to write in a manner that isn't very grasping and doesn't have any meaning. Perhaps I ought to discipline myself to sit down and make myself read it so I can see the point. I only go into threads that intruigue me by the title as I don't have the time as I used to, to go through all of the threads. To be quite frank and no offence but I was somewhat dissapointed as the title worked me up and the contend let me down. I will take my words back if I have judged incorrectly once I force myself to read it, otherwise, I am sorry.


Why in the world would you comment on a post you didn't even read?

I think you should discipline yourself to make relevant commentary to posts you've read.

Chad's post was neither grasping nor meaningless. I cannot say the same for your reply.


KA

PS. Welcome, Hally!
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

Hally McIlrath wrote:
Wheat wrote:What a boring post!


I expect much in the way of scintillating, insightful, and informative posts from you, then, Wheat, in light of your criticism. I shall pay special attention to the quality of what it is you both think and write in the future.

As far as Heber C. Kimball's proposed solution to pressing social problems _ sounds good to me. Hang a few gays, prostitutes, child molesters, defrauders, and the like in the public square, and before too long you'll have produced a much more hospitable environment for making and raising families.


Do you know what's kind of interesting, Wheat? When you start killing everyone who doesn't agree with you, in order to create a Paradise on Earth, you become the very horror that you have spent your whole life trying to rise above.

Start with the apostates ...


I'm an apostate. Would you like to kill me? You don't even know me, so...please see my post in the thread regarding blood atonement on this topic. Or perhaps you would find it too boring. It is so much easier to kill someone when you first rob them of their basic humanity.

Religion is a Rorschach test of sorts, Wheat. Sometimes it shows the best that mankind is capable, and sometimes, it shows the hollows of your soul.

Yours looks awfully empty to me.


I don't think that Wheat is being serious. He exaggerates for effect, but he feels something akin to this, though less extreme.

He assumes also that God's work will be done under a Mormon theocracy, when if fact, if there comes a theocracy to this country, it will be an Evangelical Christian one. EV's hate Mormons almost as much as they hate queers. I suspect Wheat will think a bit differently about the virtues of theocratic rule when he (and the rest of his tribe) are being persecuted by God's 'true' believers.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_Hally McIlrath
_Emeritus
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:12 am

Post by _Hally McIlrath »

KimberlyAnn wrote:PS. Welcome, Hally!


Hey, Kimberly Ann! I like your shoes. ;)
_Hally McIlrath
_Emeritus
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:12 am

Post by _Hally McIlrath »

guy sajer wrote:He assumes also that God's work will be done under a Mormon theocracy, when if fact, if there comes a theocracy to this country, it will be an Evangelical Christian one. EV's hate Mormons almost as much as they hate queers. I suspect Wheat will think a bit differently about the virtues of theocratic rule when he (and the rest of his tribe) are being persecuted by God's 'true' believers.



Whenever someone starts touting the benefits of theocracy, I feel like challenging them to name ONE they admire. The Taliban rule in Afghanistan? England under Mary Tudor? Puritan New England? Is there one that didn't advocate wholesale bloodshed and depravity, all in the name of their "religion?"
_Wheat
_Emeritus
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:19 am

Post by _Wheat »

Hally McIlrath wrote:
guy sajer wrote:He assumes also that God's work will be done under a Mormon theocracy, when if fact, if there comes a theocracy to this country, it will be an Evangelical Christian one. EV's hate Mormons almost as much as they hate queers. I suspect Wheat will think a bit differently about the virtues of theocratic rule when he (and the rest of his tribe) are being persecuted by God's 'true' believers.



Whenever someone starts touting the benefits of theocracy, I feel like challenging them to name ONE they admire. The Taliban rule in Afghanistan? England under Mary Tudor? Puritan New England? Is there one that didn't advocate wholesale bloodshed and depravity, all in the name of their "religion?"

Enoch's Zion.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Enoch's Zion.


And the morale of the story is that desirable theocracies only exist in someone's imagination.

by the way, Wheat, you wouldn't fit in.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_chonguey
_Emeritus
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:59 pm

Post by _chonguey »

Hally McIlrath wrote:
Imwashingmypirate wrote:LMNEGWO!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the lady chick dude thingy ma bobbing person who is newwww in here is a sockpuppet.



Erm, are you talking about me...? It's kind of hard to be a sockpuppet, when you're using your own name, which I am.


Hally is most certainly a real person, and one whose wit and intelligence I have come to admire quite a bit. :)

Hey Hally! Good to see you hanging around other parts of the ExMo web. :)
Reality has a known anti-Mormon bias.
_Thama
_Emeritus
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Post by _Thama »

Wheat wrote:What a boring post!

I can't see how much of anything has changed with you __ except the specific things about which you are certain.

As far as Heber C. Kimball's proposed solution to pressing social problems _ sounds good to me. Hang a few gays, prostitutes, child molesters, defrauders, and the like in the public square, and before too long you'll have produced a much more hospitable environment for making and raising families.

Start with the apostates ...


Holy crap.

Are you a parody poster? Please, please tell me that you're just trying to mock the worst sort of stereotype of what Mormons are, and that you aren't at all serious.
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

It’s time Mormons and others like them, take their savior’s words to heart and start living them instead of finding ways to feed their fears and hatred of those whom they know nothing about. “As I have loved you, love one another.”


Jesus did not love the sin. A sinner who insisted upon sinning was condemned. He loved the repentant. He came to call sinners to repentance, not to tolerate the sin.

For instance, He advocated drowning child molesters in the sea.

When it came to homosexual relations, he never came out against it specifically, but the implication is clear that he condemned non-marital relations and that he advocated marriage alone as the sole basis for intimate relations. (He talked about not committing adultery in your heart; not divorcing except for adultery; "for this purpose" man and woman were to be married.)

But, if there was any question on the subject, Paul made it clear that homosexuals and fornicators had no place in the kingdom of heaven. He also, using the analogy of castration, described the process of removing from the Church those who wouldn't toe the line.

And, if there is any question about Paul's teachings, the ante-Nicean fathers, when they referenced homosexuality, it was always -- no exception -- a condemnation and such were to be excluded from the body of Christ. I have many references. See my exchange with Chris Smith, here. Interestingly, Smith who I think posts here, is an erudite fellow, but his response was that the Church simply erred from the earliest date.

So, the concept of Jesus loving all is a new-age view of Jesus. Jesus was, in reality, a preacher of strict Mosaic morality and condemned the Jews for hypocritically following minute details and ignoring the more important things. With the woman taken in adultery, he did not condone her sin but condemned her tormentors as being guilty themselves.

The Mormon church today has a duty and a right to assert its views of morality and to advocate moral legislation. The Catholic Church uses its weight to press for a repeal of capital punishment laws. The Catholic Church has an active lobby to overturn Roe v. Wade through its influence in the selection of judges. The Evangelical right has a long history of anti-drinking advocacy, anti-abortion advocacy and the like.

So, the Mormon Church's voice against same-sex marriage is a legitimate voice in a pluralistic society. Its voice is protected by the First Amendment. The wall of the separation of church and state goes only one way, and does not bar Church advocacy for legislation.

You may disagree with the Mormon Church's view of homosexual relations, but you won't be able to base your disagreement upon a scriptural foundation.
Post Reply