Scratch's Blog wins Honorable Mention in MAD Ceremony

[_CaliforniaKid]

What does one have to do to get a dossier? Get banned? Get hounded by juliann for no reason? Expose John Gee for the liar he is?

-CK

(two out of three, baby!!)

[_Dr. Shades]

What does one have to do to get a dossier?

It depends on whether you're a MA&D regular or a "ban-ee."

Get banned?

That would qualify you for a dossier on my blog, but probably not Mister Scratch's, since he delegates such cases to me.

[_Fortigurn]

Gazelam, all you've done is quote certain passages and then append minimalist notes (usually simply paraphrasing or even repeating what is said in the text), without actually interpreting the passages. That's not exactly exposition.

[_gramps]

How about my Son of the Morning thread?: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=187

Whats in a Name?: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=273

Our Part in the Feast:http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=392&start=0

Why we celebrate the birth of Christ:http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=536&start=0

A different Jesus:http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=773&start=0

I know I've answered other things around here where I've discussed passages.

Gaz, I think Scratch is handling this just fine.

You just quote scripture again and again and .... Oh boy! Exciting!

I actually can't think of a time where you analyzed anything you have decided to riff on. I'm not going to go through every thread, however, to find the one or two times that you may have had an original thought. It may have happened.

But, I just can't get through all the cheezy pictures and long scriptural quotes to find anything of substance.

My hat's off to Mr. Scratch for his patience to help you through this. But, I, for one, don't have it.

It was fun for about the first year of my mission to play the scripture quote game, but I grew out of it. Perhaps you ought to sit in on a few philosophy classes at your local college or university and see how far quoting the prophets and the scriptures will get you.

Try bringing up a thoughtful topic and develop a line of thought, without a scriptural reference or picture to accompany it. That would be fun and I would be happy to participate on that.

I'm not saying you can't do that. I'm just saying that you don't do that.

I hope you got my PM. Sorry again to take you out of context. Even we perfect atheists make a mistake from time to time.
(Winking smiley inserted here.)

[_Gazelam]

The original question at hand was:
Scratch:

What I find so funny about Gaz's heavy reliance upon scripture is that half the time his readings of the texts are totally wrong! He tosses out these quotes, but all too often seems not to understand what they are saying.

I have now been criticised for my presentation in that when I post my outline for my priesthood lesson I don't give enough exposition. I'll accept this criticism. When I go back through my posts with the eye of another person, I can see this. In the future when I post my priesthood lessons I'll try to correct this.

That being said, the original criticism was not in regards to my presentation, but that I teach doctrines that are false, or rather that I give false interpretations. Scratch has failed in this as he has in every other attempt he has made in his discussions with me to show the slightest bit of doctrinal understanding on his part. All of our conversations have consisted of me begging and pleading with him to expound some form of testimony on his part as to what he believes in regards to church teachings. He appears to be incapable.

Tell me Scratch, what false doctrine did I declare in my "Our part in the feast" thread?
In any of my threads? Your the one who stated that I have no understanding in what I quote and post, so show me. I'll agree that my presentation in the threads may not be the best, but I do build a case in what I present. In which of these is my reading of the text totally wrong?


Gaz:
2. If I was plagiarizing I would cite my source.

Scratch:
Please, Gaz, you are killing me. My stomach hurts from laughing so hard.... LOL!!!!!!!

You got me here Scratch, that was a stupid statement on my part.


Gaz:
"The answer I would present in the classroom is that Laws are both. They are Eternal if they come from God, and they are philosophies in the sence that they are a way of thinking that we can apply towards correct action. A Law that becomes a habit. This is how God is, He is perfect in being obedient to these universal laws. The Laws arent simply on paper, they are a part of his character, and should be a part of ours."


Scratch:
"Sounds like you're saying these laws aren't real."


I don't understand what your saying here. Please expound on your comment.

[_Mister Scratch]

The original question at hand was:
Scratch:

What I find so funny about Gaz's heavy reliance upon scripture is that half the time his readings of the texts are totally wrong! He tosses out these quotes, but all too often seems not to understand what they are saying.

I have now been criticised for my presentation in that when I post my outline for my priesthood lesson I don't give enough exposition. I'll accept this criticism. When I go back through my posts with the eye of another person, I can see this. In the future when I post my priesthood lessons I'll try to correct this.

That being said, the original criticism was not in regards to my presentation, but that I teach doctrines that are false, or rather that I give false interpretations.

No, Gaz---you misunderstand me. My criticism is that you continuously toss out scripture (as others in this thread have noted) often without seeming to even understand said scriptures. That is my criticism.

Scratch has failed in this as he has in every other attempt he has made in his discussions with me to show the slightest bit of doctrinal understanding on his part. All of our conversations have consisted of me begging and pleading with him to expound some form of testimony on his part as to what he believes in regards to church teachings. He appears to be incapable.

Or unwilling. And why bother, Gaz? You have not demonstrate that you are capable of basic reading comprehension vis-a-vis many of these scriptures, so why should I even bother?

Tell me Scratch, what false doctrine did I declare in my "Our part in the feast" thread?
In any of my threads? Your the one who stated that I have no understanding in what I quote and post, so show me.
I'll agree that my presentation in the threads may not be the best, but I do build a case in what I present. In which of these is my reading of the text totally wrong?

You see? This is the essential problem, Gaz---and believe me, you have my sincere sympathy here. You yourself admit that you do a poor job of "presentation." Well, then, my dear friend, I ask you: How/why are we supposed to view you as being conversant in the Gospel if you cannot articulate your thoughts and feelings?

Gaz:
2. If I was plagiarizing I would cite my source.

Scratch:
Please, Gaz, you are killing me. My stomach hurts from laughing so hard.... LOL!!!!!!!

You got me here Scratch, that was a stupid statement on my part.

Fair enough.

Gaz:
"The answer I would present in the classroom is that Laws are both. They are Eternal if they come from God, and they are philosophies in the sence that they are a way of thinking that we can apply towards correct action. A Law that becomes a habit. This is how God is, He is perfect in being obedient to these universal laws. The Laws arent simply on paper, they are a part of his character, and should be a part of ours."

Scratch:
"Sounds like you're saying these laws aren't real."

I don't understand what your saying here. Please expound on your comment.

Again: why bother?

[_Yoda]

Gaz:
"The answer I would present in the classroom is that Laws are both. They are Eternal if they come from God, and they are philosophies in the sence that they are a way of thinking that we can apply towards correct action. A Law that becomes a habit. This is how God is, He is perfect in being obedient to these universal laws. The Laws arent simply on paper, they are a part of his character, and should be a part of ours."


Scratch:
"Sounds like you're saying these laws aren't real."

No, I think that what Gaz is trying to say is that laws do not have to be written to be real. Some laws just "are", like the law of gravity. God is the creator of all of these laws. Since he created them, he has a perfect understanding of them. It also means that God, himself, has to adhere to the laws he created.

I think that this example of Gaz's priesthood lesson was probably a little unfair to utilize as an example. I remember when Gaz made this post. It was right before Christmastime, and was really more of a "good will" post. He was basically just sharing his priesthood lesson outline, and stated as much. Being a teacher myself, I know that when you are sketching together an outline for items being discussed in the classroom, it is a completely different animal from posting or publishing a written debate.

[_Gazelam]

No, Gaz---you misunderstand me. My criticism is that you continuously toss out scripture (as others in this thread have noted) often without seeming to even understand said scriptures. That is my criticism.

Again, for the third time, please show me an example of my misunderstanding of scripture.

Or unwilling. And why bother, Gaz? You have not demonstrate that you are capable of basic reading comprehension vis-a-vis many of these scriptures, so why should I even bother?

Same answer as above. Please illustrate your point. (That makes four requests now)

You see? This is the essential problem, Gaz---and believe me, you have my sincere sympathy here. You yourself admit that you do a poor job of "presentation." Well, then, my dear friend, I ask you: How/why are we supposed to view you as being conversant in the Gospel if you cannot articulate your thoughts and feelings?

If I was that bad, then how do you know I got something wrong? Your pathetic attempt to escape from your unfounded declaration is not going to work. Again I say, put up or shut up.


In the earlier thread I called you a coward for not declareing what it is you believe in and not standing up for yourself. Since then I have given you multiple oportunities to prove me wrong and you have wriggled and squirmed your way out of every request. Please stop acting like a worm and stand up for yourself. Scratch I want to be wrong about you, I honestly do, but thus far I ahve not been shown to be wrong.

In your own words:

There is nothing cowardly about addressing the nature of faith.

Then do so. I have used every method I can think of to try to get you to do this. The closest you have come was on Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:45 pm, and your answers there were shorter than my commentary in the Christmas post I made.

I asked you , since you seem to not think of God as Physical, to do some form of commentary on Luke 24:36-53. If you are uncomfortable with this, here is a short list of subjects that many people wonder about. Commenting on any of these would be interesting for anyone who enjoys discussing religious subjects.

1. Does God possess a complete knowledge of the future?

2. Was the flood of Noah local or global? (A favorite topic of Harmony's)

3. Was Christ both fully God and fully human during his ministry or did he relinquish his divinity for a season?

4. Are only the predestined saved or do all people have a potential for full salvation? (This kind of ties in to the knowledge of the future subject)

5. Do men and women enjoy eternal security from the moment of their spiritual rebirth or must they endure faithfully to the end to have a hope of eternal life?

6. what happens to babies who die?

7. The fate of the unevangelized.

8. Is baptism essntial to salvation and to whom should it be administered - infants or mature believers?

9. Should women serve in certain ministerial capasities?

10. Does man play a role in his own salvation beyond an initial confession of Christ as Savior? What is the meaning and place of works?

11. Is man a child of God or a mere creation of God? What are the psycological effects of each of these views?

12. Should wives submit to their husbands and if so how and in what way?

If you don't want to comment on the resurrection, then please choose form any of these. Or choose your own. I just want to see you share three paragraphs or so on some doctrinal point.

Spending your time tearing down and picking apart other people is a piss poor way to post in a board entitled "Mormon discussions". Actually its poor form on any board. Please put your Charles Emerson Winchester III prose form to better use.

Gaz

[_Mephitus]

I think it might be interesting to play these questions off asatru. though feel free to continue this on a christian level of debate.

1. Does God possess a complete knowledge of the future? Partialy, through the use of the witches of wyrd (the fates)

2. Was the flood of Noah local or global? (A favorite topic of Harmony's) The original flood story was from the sagas of gilgamesh which pre-date the christian flood story by many many years. Though there is theory that it could also be a re-write about the flooding of the euphrades river and a merchant that was caught in it.

3. Was Christ both fully God and fully human during his ministry or did he relinquish his divinity for a season? He was merely a man who did good things, nothing more.

4. Are only the predestined saved or do all people have a potential for full salvation? (This kind of ties in to the knowledge of the future subject) All shall move about the 9 worlds, which aesir or vanir claim them for what reasons, i do not know

5. Do men and women enjoy eternal security from the moment of their spiritual rebirth or must they endure faithfully to the end to have a hope of eternal life? faith is merely a psychological aid, security comes from what strength and work you put into it

6. what happens to babies who die? see #4

7. The fate of the unevangelized. see #4

8. Is baptism essntial to salvation and to whom should it be administered - infants or mature believers? babtism is not needed

9. Should women serve in certain ministerial capasities? While there are deeds more easily/commonly carried out by women, there is no clear-cut division of labors or clergy work.

10. Does man play a role in his own salvation beyond an initial confession of Christ as Savior? What is the meaning and place of works? salvation is not needed. from what do we need to be saved?

11. Is man a child of God or a mere creation of God? What are the psycological effects of each of these views? The gods are either sons, or dirrect creations from the god that made up what is now the 9 worlds, ymir. The effect of this is that they hold a loose kinship of relation to ymir. As such, they are bound by rules of honour even amung enimies of the gods and giants.

12. Should wives submit to their husbands and if so how and in what way? The only time in which a woman must submit is in time of home defense.(she must let him go) The man claims a life oath of defending the home no matter the cost. Other than that, she has equal say in all things, whether secular or spiritual.

[_Yoda]

Gaz---I love your questions, here! :)

They have the making of a great thread on its' own, with everyone giving their opinions of the answers and why.

If you and Sono don't mind, I would like to move these questions and his response to a new thread. Hopefully, we'll get Scratchy's take on this as well.