Where I'm at...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Runtu wrote:True. I wouldn't be too hard on Bob. I think he is genuinely concerned about my spiritual well-being. He's just blunt about it.


Hmmm....I hope you're right.

From what I've seen of Bob's posting, the only thing Bob cares about is how smart and righteous he can make himself look.

He would have made a good Pharisee.
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

AmazingDisgrace wrote:Is there a commandment somewhere that says, "thou shalt not attend any LDS church meetings save thou canst give the correct answers to the first three temple recommend questions."?

If Runtu's leaders are aware of his situation, and they don't ban him from coming to church, why should it matter to a believing member with no stewardship?


It doesn't.

I don't carp about his attending church with his family. I never have. Read my posts and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Liz: You are a nice person, really, but there isn't any substance moving from your keyboard to the board. Be gone with you.

John, you are nice person with substance. The Lord will reclaim you.

rcrocket
Last edited by _rcrocket on Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Hey Sethbag,

I hear you. And I think that for the most part you're right. I do try to focus on people and on ethics rather than on abstraction. Ocasionally I banter with friends about the Trinity, but that's just because it's fun.

But I think it's worth pointing out that doctrines frequently do affect people. When I argue for allowing women in ministry or allowing gays to marry, it's for two reasons:

1) I believe that if there is a God then this is what he wants/would want.
2) I believe that it's better for all of us that Christians believe those things, even if there is no real metaphysical grounding for them.

In other words, theology has real-world consequences, and I do not see it as just a disconnected mental abstraction.

-Chris
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Pharisee Bob wrote:Liz: You are a nice person, really, but there isn't any substance moving from your keyboard to the board. Be gone with you.

rcrocket


Again, Bob, sorry to burst your bubble. I have just as much right to post here as you do. That's why, as much as I would LOVE for you to "be gone", it wouldn't do any good to ask that of you. And, believe me, if I weren't such a "nice person", I would not only tell you to "be gone"...but I would tell you where to go.

;)
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

liz3564 wrote:
Runtu wrote:True. I wouldn't be too hard on Bob. I think he is genuinely concerned about my spiritual well-being. He's just blunt about it.


Hmmm....I hope you're right.

From what I've seen of Bob's posting, the only thing Bob cares about is how smart and righteous he can make himself look.

He would have made a good Pharisee.


You really know nothing about me, because I have disclosed little. Just because a poster defends the Church and its mission does not mean that one has to be viewed as self-righteous and smug. Repent of your evil deeds. Become a poster of substance. Know what you're talking about. And, maybe a sense of humor to know when your leg is getting pulled, perhaps? Maybe not.

rcrocket
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Bob wrote:Just because a poster defends the Church and its mission does not mean that one has to be viewed as self-righteous and smug.


Defending the Church is not what makes you self-righteous and smug.

Personally attacking others and sitting in false judgment of others is what makes you self-righteous and smug.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:Repent of your evil deeds. Become a poster of substance. Know what you're talking about. And, maybe a sense of humor to know when your leg is getting pulled, perhaps?

That sounds pretty darn self-righteous and smug to me.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

OK. You've got me. I'm smug and self-righteous.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

rcrocket wrote:OK. You've got me. I'm smug and self-righteous.


Glad we've cleared that up!

This is signature-worthy!

And you thought I didn't have a sense of humor!

;)
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

CaliforniaKid wrote:Hey Sethbag,

I hear you. And I think that for the most part you're right. I do try to focus on people and on ethics rather than on abstraction. Occasionally I banter with friends about the Trinity, but that's just because it's fun.

But I think it's worth pointing out that doctrines frequently do affect people. When I argue for allowing women in ministry or allowing gays to marry, it's for two reasons:

1) I believe that if there is a God then this is what he wants/would want.
2) I believe that it's better for all of us that Christians believe those things, even if there is no real metaphysical grounding for them.

In other words, theology has real-world consequences, and I do not see it as just a disconnected mental abstraction.

-Chris

Actually, I see your arguing for allowing women in ministry and allowing gays to marry as in fact focusing on people. Women are real people, and should be taken seriously, and so are gays. You're simply trying to do what's right by them, as opposed to using abstract theological concepts to justify not doing what's right by them.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Post Reply