The shoe couldn't fit you better Schmo, you're a simpleton and you hate it when anyone suggests you might want to change that. Allowing a theist to define faith instead of doing it for them, is basic charity. But you don’t want to do that, because the target isn’t as big as a barn and requires a little work and nuance.
beefcalf wrote:Are you certain Aristotle wants you to massage his prostate like that?
Smith and I disagree on most topics doing with religion, from authorship issues, dates, interpretation, teleology and what have you. You don’t see this, because we can’t discuss it here without being annoyed and derailed with stuff like:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Jesus DOESN’T EXIST! I KNOW BECAUSE I READ A WEBSITE
Or
It’s all one big fairy tale, so allow me to tell you what the Bible says and what exactly it means, even though I don’t know the first thing about the language it was written in, it’s cultural context, or how it was preserved. Since I went to LDS Sunday school for 25 years, I feel confident my surface knowledge of the KJV allows me to override any kind of scholarship that’s out there, since I’ve excused myself from any burden to actually bother to learn about something.
With that, it’s time for another complaint about how you don’t need no fancy book learnin’ to be an expert on a vast topic. That, or another passive aggressive Hamblin/ Chap comment, whatever works.
okaaay....
So... what's the minimum amount of educayshun someone must have to qualify to hold, and voice, their opinion about Mormonism?
A list of the right books to read, a list of the correct majors to study, a list of the appropriate degrees earned... where is the line, Stak?
Who is qualified to even be here? Who is qualified to voice their opinion about Mormonism?
Might one of the qualifications be that you actually have some sort of connection to Mormonism itself?
Note: 'my gf wuz 1 once' is just one of many correct answers.
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
MrStakhanovite wrote:With that, it’s time for another complaint about how you don’t need no fancy book learnin’ to be an expert on a vast topic. That, or another passive aggressive Hamblin/ Chap comment, whatever works.
Looks like the stick up your ass is long enough to have finally punched a hole at the base of your brain. Maybe you should get that looked at.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
MrStakhanovite wrote:The shoe couldn't fit you better Schmo, you're a simpleton and you hate it when anyone suggests you might want to change that. Allowing a theist to define faith instead of doing it for them, is basic charity. But you don’t want to do that, because the target isn’t as big as a barn and requires a little work and nuance.
LOL
Well surprise, surprise, Stak reads but doesn't internalize what's written. Oh, the shock, I tell you!
Note: you'd be even funnier if you weren't so terribly predictable. Still... makes me smile.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
MrStakhanovite wrote:I like how pleas to allow theists define the terms they live by, and challenges to read/listen to more material suddenly transforms into I’m telling people how to think.
beefcalf wrote:So... what's the minimum amount of educayshun someone must have to qualify to hold, and voice, their opinion about Mormonism?
A list of the right books to read, a list of the correct majors to study, a list of the appropriate degrees earned... where is the line, Stak?
Who is qualified to even be here? Who is qualified to voice their opinion about Mormonism?
Might one of the qualifications be that you actually have some sort of connection to Mormonism itself?
Asking for a preapproved list of books and objectives….
Once a Mormon, always a Mormon I guess?
How about this Sport, think to yourself, “ Hmmmmm, what topic would I like to have a reasonable conversation about…” Then go find something to read/listen to about that topic. Have fun.
Keep avoiding the topic of how you suck at having an adult conversation about religion Schmo. Make a small penis joke while you're at it, that'll take care of everything.
MrStakhanovite wrote:I like how pleas to allow theists define the terms they live by, and challenges to read/listen to more material suddenly transforms into I’m telling people how to think.
beefcalf wrote:So... what's the minimum amount of educayshun someone must have to qualify to hold, and voice, their opinion about Mormonism?
A list of the right books to read, a list of the correct majors to study, a list of the appropriate degrees earned... where is the line, Stak?
Who is qualified to even be here? Who is qualified to voice their opinion about Mormonism?
Might one of the qualifications be that you actually have some sort of connection to Mormonism itself?
Asking for a preapproved list of books and objectives….
Once a Mormon, always a Mormon I guess?
How about this Sport, think to yourself, “ Hmmmmm, what topic would I like to have a reasonable conversation about…” Then go find something to read/listen to about that topic. Have fun.
ETA: Leave my relationships out of this.
I wonder if tears can short circuit a computer keyboard...
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
beefcalf wrote:So... what's the minimum amount of educayshun someone must have to qualify to hold, and voice, their opinion about Mormonism?
A six pack of Schlitz and a collection of porno mags.
Step back for a second. Aren't mopologists the ones who want to put requirements on who is allowed to speak on Mormon topics? Don't average LDS members often say, if you want to know about a Ford, go to a Ford dealership? How is requiring a certain connection to Mormonism different than what you are requiring?
Keep avoiding the topic of how you suck at having an adult conversation about religion Schmo. Make a small penis joke while you're at it, that'll take care of everything.
[sarcasm]Oh yes, if there's one person I think of when it comes to having adult conversations, it's you, Stakipoo. [/sarcasm]
Keep avoiding the topic of how you suck at avoiding hypocrisy, Stak. Post a picture to make some remote reference while you're at it. That'll make you look really smart and clever.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
MrStakhanovite wrote:With that, it’s time for another complaint about how you don’t need no fancy book learnin’ to be an expert on a vast topic. That, or another passive aggressive Hamblin/ Chap comment, whatever works.
Looks like the stick up your ass is long enough to have finally punched a hole at the base of your brain. Maybe you should get that looked at.
You know, Schmo, I think you need to understand that some people come to websites like this because they need to have a really serious conversation about the subjects in which their years of rigorous training have made them acknowledged experts. After all, if they can't meet their intellectual peers here, where can they go? Whereas you or I could satisfy our humble needs in Mo's bar anytime.
You should treat your betters with the respect they deserve. After all, think of the risks you are running by your continual levity: remember what a gaping wound Droopy inflicted on us all when his patience finally snapped. And whatever you do, don't giggle.
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.
