Lack of inoculation takes another

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ah, cool. But I read his first post ... doesn't he say the timing is not coincidental?

In any case, tell him he's welcome to post in these kinds of threads here too.

Obviously he is already reading both.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I can't know your thoughts and for that matter you can't know mine. So, therefore your assertion that I wish to 'try to conform someone else to my POV' is silly. Furthermore, I'm not making an argument but rather an observation. Also, I'm not offended, another mistake you make while trying to point out what I must be thinking.

And I will always apologize for rude behavior or language and I don't care if you or anyone else here likes me.

Your attempts to conform others to your POV are evidenced in your actions, tooblue. Both you and Tex have a way of saying to the foot "I have no need of you."

It's a fact. Deal with it and move on.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually with the exception of SIEQ who has inexplicably gone ballistic, I think this has generally been a pretty respectful discussion all around. I've enjoyed it.

I hope we can stay on topic and not get into another flame war.

I know you're just going with PR 101, but I didn't go ballistic. I just pointed out your deceptions.

Seriously, Tex, stop saying "thou fool" to everyone who disagrees with you. You're like the obnoxious IT guy in Dilbert who spends all day mocking people and then wonders why no one wants to hang out with him at the Christmas party.

I accept your apology about the "apostates" comment.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Your attempts to conform others to your POV are evidenced in your actions, tooblue. Both you and Tex have a way of saying to the foot "I have no need of you."

It's a fact. Deal with it and move on.

Again, you assert that I pretend to know what you are thinking and then blatantly write what you are certain I am not only thinking but doing?

Your posts in this thread can only come from what may be considered a postion of morally superior reasoning. That is a fact. Deal with the irony of you calling someone else self-righteous, apologize and move on. Are you so whipped up in your morally superior reasoning to see that I haven't even taken a side in the argument? You have summarily lumped me in with Tex's reasoning and yet I have not sided with it or even against it. Or, is there a phantom post I have made here that you must be referring to?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Again, you assert that I pretend to know what you are thinking and then blatantly write what you are certain I am not only thinking but doing?

Your posts in this thread can only come from what may be considered a postion of morally superior reasoning. That is a fact. Deal with the irony of you calling someone else self-righteous, apologize and move on.

Tooblue, perhaps you're just misunderstanding me. Whether you are thinking you are superior or not, your actions (i.e., on a message board, your words) can reasonably be interepreted that way.

For example, your endless (and mindless) assertions of superiority against anyone who has dared disagree with you about: evolution, your donuthole "theory," your made-up Marxism, and so on. You align yourself with the angels and do not deign to say, "well, we don't agree, but then there are good people on many sides of this issue."

I've stated as much many times. Thinking you have the "right" of an issue is common and should not bring down the charge of an air of superiority. After all, aren't many striving to figure out what's right? Thinking that anyone who disagrees with you is evil is another matter.

This is the difference between, for example, Republican Church members thinking that they're views are "right," and Republican Church members questioning the membership or moral fitness of a Mormon Democrat or Libertarian. The one accepts differences in judgment and opportunities for persuasion, the other says "thou fool" and "foot, I have no need of thee."

So I'm telling you that I think you're behavior on CG is often misguided, but that I don't think that makes you evil or me morally superior.

Consider how many of your posts have a subtext of "thou fool." Consider the post I'm responding to. I think it's misguided.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Wow.

Here's the thing, Tex. We live in an age where there is immediate access to all truths, both "good" and "bad". So the only recourse for those with your mindset is to obfuscate, deny, and ignore. Personally, I find that to be damaging to faith in the long run, not supportive.

I'm going to disagree on several levels.

First, there is not "immediate access to all truths." In many, many cases we do not have all the facts. Sometimes it's because they are being withheld by someone, and sometimes it's just because they simply don't exist. I see very little care exercised here about what we don't know.

Second, for this discussion I eschew the terms "good" and "bad" truth in favor of "more important" and "less important." It's an important distinction.

Third, remember we are talking about this as a matter of faith. I'm not being critical of the scholarly approach that demands as complete and accurate a picture as possible. Facts are facts. But that's not always useful when it comes to faith.

In fact, "obfuscation" (I don't like that term, but I'll use it) is present in the way the Lord works with his people. The Lord instructed the early church that some "cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish." The mortal Jesus himself often taught in parables--in fact Matthew even says "and without a parable spake he not unto them"--with the explicit purpose of obscuring doctrine.

"But Jesus intended for them to understand eventually," one might say. Yes, indeed. And maybe someday he'll fully intend for us to understand some of the murky aspects of church history. Until then, what spiritual purpose does that serve?

Let me ask you ... how many of the qualities of D&C 121:41-42 could you say you possess? Could you name off all the gifts of the Spirit, and expound each one? How would you answer the introspective questions of Alma 5? The Pharisees were severely rebuked for their attention to Mosaic detail, and omitting the "weightier matters." Well might we hear them say, "but Jesus, we were just seeking the truth!"

Does that mean we can never learn about these matters? Again, no. I enjoyed the DOM book despite my criticisms, and so far I've enjoyed what little of Bushman I've had time to read. It's interesting, and it can be instructive.

But not as a matter of faith. I don't expect to hear about it General Conference. I don't expect Hinckley to expound on it in media interviews. I don't expect to see it addressed in press statements or integrated into curricula.

It's just not that important.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Your attempts to conform others to your POV are evidenced in your actions, tooblue. Both you and Tex have a way of saying to the foot "I have no need of you."

It's a fact. Deal with it and move on.

Instead of demonizing me or trying to insult me you could ask me my opinion on the subject?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Instead of demonizing me or trying to insult me you could ask me my opinion on the subject?

Read my most recent post. I'm not trying to demonize you. I just think you're misguided.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I accept your apology about the "apostates" comment.

I don't mean to insert the hidden wedge that you have finally excised, but I did not apologize. I never called you an apostate, either directly or implied. I'm happy you have finally reached that realization.

Other than that, SIEQ, I simply don't want to talk to you. You are far too emotionally intense for me to converse with.

Cheers.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't mean to insert the hidden wedge that you have finally excised, but I did not apologize. I never called you an apostate, either directly or implied. I'm happy you have finally reached that realization.

Other than that, SIEQ, I simply don't want to talk to you. You are far too emotionally intense for me to converse with.

Cheers.

Wow. You most certainly did imply that I was an apostate. Your "I don't mean to insert..." is laughable, as you very much do mean to insert, you just don't want to be called out for doing so (kind of like when someone says, I'm not racist, but...and then you hear something racist). And the arrogance in your "finally realized" comment is nauseating. You threw around the word "apostates" like it was some kind of blanket descriptor of a conversation I was participating in and then think you can control the meaning after the fact. Guess what, you can't. If you don't want people to think you've called them an apostate, don't interject yourself into a conversation with the phrase, "Guess what apostates?" Not doing things like that is a fundamental way to not show contempt for those with whom you converse.

I hope you get over yourself. Calling someone an apostate and then criticizing them for being "emotionally intense" when they understandably think you are asserting moral superiority is not the best way to get people to like you.