If I were a Christian......

[_Coggins7]

Its very, very tempting to respond to Scratch here, but I'm not going to give into it because this indivudual is not an intellectually honest or worthwhile philosophical opponent. I'll only say there were no cheap shots made anywhere at Cricket, or personal insults. If anything, I answered her original post with seroius and honest general statemnets. However, for no apparant reason, she began a round of viscious, ugly, vulgar, and profane ad hominem attacks upon me (which Scratch seems to have overlooked), to which I have responded using humor and parody in an attempt to, perhaps, loosen the bolts in her neck a little bit.

A little cutting yet truthful satire never hurt anybody, and could perhaps be helpful to someone as full of boiling, displaced, impotent rage as is Cricket seems to be.

As to Scratch, he is playing, as usual, the provocatuer and demagogue, and I do not have anything to say to him in response to any of his points, especially as several of them propose flat footed falsehoods about church doctrine and the beliefs of Joseph Smith (Socialism? oh please, please...)


Loran

[_Mephitus]

sorry, support capitalism. I don't want handouts. And i don't expect to hand out what I've rightfully worked my a** off for. And im saying that having been homeless at one point.

I know Jesus only to be a mythical figure. He was what i life to refer to as a "situational messiah". There is more evidence that some of the other people who where claiming to be a messiah existed during that same time period. Such as a man known as Appalonius of Tienna (spelling?). He was credited with much along the same lines as Jesus did.

While some of the teachings that are accredited to Jesus arent half bad, they are surrounded by teachings that basicly allow intollerance and hate. that's why i moved out of christianity completely.

[_Mister Scratch]

Its very, very tempting to respond to Scratch here, but I'm not going to give into it because this indivudual is not an intellectually honest or worthwhile philosophical opponent.

No, Loran. The reason you won't be responding to me is because you are weak. I defy you to supply one single instance in which I was "intellectually [dis]honest."

I'll only say there were no cheap shots made anywhere at Cricket, or personal insults. If anything, I answered her original post with seroius and honest general statemnets. However, for no apparant reason, she began a round of viscious, ugly, vulgar, and profane ad hominem attacks upon me (which Scratch seems to have overlooked), to which I have responded using humor and parody in an attempt to, perhaps, loosen the bolts in her neck a little bit.

How dense are you? Your response was transparently condescending and nasty.

A little cutting yet truthful satire never hurt anybody, and could perhaps be helpful to someone as full of boiling, displaced, impotent rage as is Cricket seems to be.

C'mon, Loran. Set down the Smirnoff's. You should know better. The only person who thinks your stupid parodies are funny is you.

As to Scratch, he is playing, as usual, the provocatuer and demagogue, and I do not have anything to say to him in response to any of his points, especially as several of them propose flat footed falsehoods about church doctrine and the beliefs of Joseph Smith (Socialism? oh please, please...)
Loran

No. You are wrong, and you are a weakling. The reason you will not confront the truthfulness of what I say I because you cannot. You are too weak. It is a well-known historical fact that, at one time, members of the Church were expected to give up a substantial amount of their belongings in effort to create a socialistic sort of existence. Do your research.

Nothing I say is meant to be "provocative." It simply is. I could equally say about you that you are interested in maintaining a kind of sick status quo. You are not interested in Perfecting the Saints; you are interested in Keeping Them in Their Place.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

No, Loran. The reason you won't be responding to me is because you are weak. I defy you to supply one single instance in which I was "intellectually [dis]honest."

Now Scratch is beginning to sound like Jesse Ventura.

How dense are you? Your response was transparently condescending and nasty.

An excellent example of cognitive distortion. But to each his own. My own feeling is tha many times satirical humor, aimed sometimes at others boiling over such as Cricket, and sometimes at oneself (we should never take ourselves too seriously) can be theraputic and a nice reality check.

C'mon, Loran. Set down the Smirnoff's. You should know better. The only person who thinks your stupid parodies are funny is you.

I prefer Grey Goose, the really good stuff, but Smirnoffs is OK. Rum, Gin, and a real smooth Whiskey are much more my cup of tea than Vodka. However, as I am an alcoholic with a serious history in this area, I try very hard to stay well away from any of it. I have accomplished that feat tonight, so my stupid parodies shall remain the coin of the realm in my lucid, unintoxicated, non-cognitively distorted state.

No. You are wrong, and you are a weakling. The reason you will not confront the truthfulness of what I say I because you cannot. You are too weak. It is a well-known historical fact that, at one time, members of the Church were expected to give up a substantial amount of their belongings in effort to create a socialistic sort of existence. Do your research.

I think Scratch is watching too much WWF Smackdown. He's starting to sound like one of those guys who wants his title back. In any event, the communitarian structure called the United Order, or Law of Consecration, bears no resemblance to secualr concepts of socialism or communism whatever. Its also the case that there is no reason to believe that the specific form this eocnomic and social system took, under conditions of abject survival during the colonizing and building of a functioning community in a forsaken desert would be the same Untied Order practiced under other conditions. One indication of this is simply that, from an economic standpoint, Scocialism simply doesn't work. It destroys existing wealth and prevents the creation of new wealth, a situation that would hardly serve the Saints well, especially since numerous biblical and Book of Mormon teachings and examples could by pointed to indicating that wealth and prosperity can be a blessing of the Lord and a natural concomitant to the living of the Gospel.

Other fundamental differences could be pointed out, but its too late for that tonight.

[_Mister Scratch]

No, Loran. The reason you won't be responding to me is because you are weak. I defy you to supply one single instance in which I was "intellectually [dis]honest."

Now Scratch is beginning to sound like Jesse Ventura.

???? Is this yet another of your hilarious, parodic rejoinders?

How dense are you? Your response was transparently condescending and nasty.

An excellent example of cognitive distortion. But to each his own. My own feeling is tha many times satirical humor, aimed sometimes at others boiling over such as Cricket, and sometimes at oneself (we should never take ourselves too seriously) can be theraputic and a nice reality check.

While I agree that we shouldn't take ourselves to seriously, I wonder if you think parody of your "sacred beliefs" is okay.... Would you consider that to be "a nice reality check"? Or blasphemy?

C'mon, Loran. Set down the Smirnoff's. You should know better. The only person who thinks your stupid parodies are funny is you.

I prefer Grey Goose, the really good stuff, but Smirnoffs is OK. Rum, Gin, and a real smooth Whiskey are much more my cup of tea than Vodka. However, as I am an alcoholic with a serious history in this area, I try very hard to stay well away from any of it. I have accomplished that feat tonight, so my stupid parodies shall remain the coin of the realm in my lucid, unintoxicated, non-cognitively distorted state.

Better put the lampshade back on your head, because you're still not funny.

No. You are wrong, and you are a weakling. The reason you will not confront the truthfulness of what I say I because you cannot. You are too weak. It is a well-known historical fact that, at one time, members of the Church were expected to give up a substantial amount of their belongings in effort to create a socialistic sort of existence. Do your research.

I think Scratch is watching too much WWF Smackdown.

Kiss the "no ad hominem" promise goodbye! Speaking of which, I didn't appreciate being told that I ought to have my genitals bitten by Black Widow spiders, Loran. Not very nice.

He's starting to sound like one of those guys who wants his title back. In any event, the communitarian structure called the United Order, or Law of Consecration, bears no resemblance to secualr concepts of socialism or communism whatever.

I beg to differ.

Its also the case that there is no reason to believe that the specific form this eocnomic and social system took, under conditions of abject survival during the colonizing and building of a functioning community in a forsaken desert would be the same Untied Order practiced under other conditions.

What "forsaken desert"? The United Order was put into place well before Salt Lake City.

One indication of this is simply that, from an economic standpoint, Scocialism simply doesn't work.

This isn't necessarily correct.

It destroys existing wealth and prevents the creation of new wealth, a situation that would hardly serve the Saints well,

No kidding, hence the numerous bankruptcies which troubled the Church in its early history. Oh, wait... Ahem. Whose argument are you supporting here, Loran?

especially since numerous biblical and Book of Mormon teachings and examples could by pointed to indicating that wealth and prosperity can be a blessing of the Lord and a natural concomitant to the living of the Gospel.

Other fundamental differences could be pointed out, but its too late for that tonight.

I agree it is late. I will meet up again with you tomorrow, my friend.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:

Quote:
No, Loran. The reason you won't be responding to me is because you are weak. I defy you to supply one single instance in which I was "intellectually [dis]honest."



Now Scratch is beginning to sound like Jesse Ventura.



???? Is this yet another of your hilarious, parodic rejoinders?

Yes.


Quote:

While I agree that we shouldn't take ourselves to seriously, I wonder if you think parody of your "sacred beliefs" is okay.... Would you consider that to be "a nice reality check"? Or blasphemy?

I don't recall responding to any sacred beliefs Cricket held, not am I sure at this early juncture she has any to speak of.

Better put the lampshade back on your head, because you're still not funny.

I prefer putting Arab terrorists in a big pile and putting woman's underwear on their heads, but to each his own.

Kiss the "no ad hominem" promise goodbye! Speaking of which, I didn't appreciate being told that I ought to have my genitals bitten by Black Widow spiders, Loran. Not very nice.

First of all, that predates my apology, and secondly, your're giving me ideas. Stop setting yourself up like this.


What "forsaken desert"? The United Order was put into place well before Salt Lake City.

These were still survival conditions in undeveloped territories under pre-industrial nineteenth century conditions. My observation still applies.

Quote:
One indication of this is simply that, from an economic standpoint, Scocialism simply doesn't work.



This isn't necessarily correct.

In fact its precisely correct, and there is over two centuries of empirical and historical evidence to prove it.

[DrW]

I would be incapable of having thirty-five billion dollars in my pocket while people starve.

A good thought! Not so easy to practice evidently. (Could be what Jesus had in mind when HE told the rich-guy who was on the edge of perfection, he had 1 final thing to do...)

I couldn't tell little girls that their sole purpose in life is to have children and serve a husband. (Yea, but You are a person of the 20th century, luckily...with choices. Like my vab-5 daughters :-)

I would never lie. (A good'un!)

I would insist that anything less than an egalitarian society is not good enough. (Could there be a better one: "...all people should have equal political, social and economic RIGHTS" (Websters New World Dictionary)? I don't think so.

The evidence that we have does not point to the existence of Jesus. (Debatable, with strong feelings.) Still, I can't help hoping and wishing that He existed because I think that if we actually followed His teachings, we would literally save the world. (I agree 100+%! BUT we do have HIS message of how to do that. Whether from a story character, a mortal man, a mythological figure or whatever, HIS is a philosophy that supplants "eye-for-eye" and power domination of the under-powered. IMSCO, in my seriously considered opinion.)

Question:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, a fable, or the actual savior of the world? (WE save the world. He told us how... but... we ain't got too good at it yet...)

(It matters not. Except to folks who are more concerned with saving themselves, than saving the world, IMSCO.)

Hi Cricket, hang in Sis! I kinda like ya! Sort-of remind me of the guy who kicked over tables, told the high an' mighty they were hypocrites, enjoyed street folks and even tried to save them from ignorance AND their leaders.

I wonder how HE would respond to yer opening post??? I'll take my turn: Actually i did already. As i "boldly" posted between your remarks :-)

Thanks,

Cricket

OOPS, imperfect guy that i am, it looks like i messed up the quote thing. Hope you forgive me my slothfullnes, and that you can make sense of my gibbers. Thank YOU Cricket! Warm regards, Roger

[consiglieri]

I would be incapable of having thirty-five billion dollars in my pocket while people starve.

I couldn't tell little girls that their sole purpose in life is to have children and serve a husband.

I would never lie.

I would insist that anything less than an egalitarian society is not good enough.

The evidence that we have does not point to the existence of Jesus. Still, I can't help hoping and wishing that He existed because I think that if we actually followed His teachings, we would literally save the world.

Question:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, a fable, or the actual savior of the world?

Thanks,

Cricket

Rock on, Cricket! Coming from a Christian, that is. You see, I think the same as you. I'm poor, but I give what I can when I can. Far too many people suffer around me for me not to. I try to keep around folks who feel the same way, though many I know are caught up in the materialistic society we live in, and "keeping up with the Jones'". It's sad.

When I was a kid, I lied like I breathed. But now, I just can't do it. Even when someone asks me how their hair looks, LOL. I don't know what changed, it just didn't feel right to be anything but truthful any longer. I get into a lot of trouble with that however, especially at work, because in the corporate workplace, there's little else other than guile and office politics going on. I try to come each day with a clean slate, and when folks expect you to sell yourself and be a machine, there's bound to be conflict.

You are right, anything less than an egalitarian[edit: equal rights, equal access to food, healthcare, the basics of meaninful life, not quite egalitarian in the strictest sense] society isn't good enough. Under the surface, aren't we all the same?

Cricket, your ideas and concerns are on the mark and correct. However, I think that Christians have created a sort of dualist life, where church, sunday, and everything that revolves around that is sacred, and the rest of life is profane. They fail to ascribe full and true Christian principles to every aspect of their lives. As Christians, our duty is not just to assure our own salvation, but to assure the prosperity of the community as a whole, on every level possible, regardless of culture or belief. Sadly, Christianity in this country and across the globe has gotten so caught up in this "club mentality" that we seem to have, that we're missing the true point. And it's heartbreaking.

My boyfriend doesn't go to church. But he's more Christian than many I've met in my lifetime. I grew up with people who swore up and down they were sanctified and saved, yet they couldn't change their own kid's diapers but once a day, and damned everyone to hell who didn't agree with them. Sad, really. My grandma used to tell me I was going to hell every time she saw me.

Your vision is slowly becoming the vision of a new kind of grassroots Christianity that is more concerned with these issues, than with making sure everyone has a Bible in their hand. It's slow work, but I personally try to take heart that someday we'll be in a better place than we are now.

I admire you for posting your ideas.

[_Sam Harris]

Crap!

I was really hoping that it would be somebody other than you that answered my first thread!

If you think that Mormonism is a fine example of how to care for your fellow man, then you and I will never see eye to eye. Honestly, you give me the screaming willies.

I am more curious to find out what people who are struggling with right and wrong outside of a strict set of rules are thinking. I want to know what life is like for those who can freely admit that they don't know what the secret to life itself is. I want to learn about the thought processes of individuals like myself who truly think that being decent and kind is more important than any set theology.

Again, how does Jesus fit into your own moral paradigm? Is He a historical figure or an allegory? Does it even matter?

He's a bigot. Ignore him.

[_Sam Harris]

Oh! I forgot to answer your last question. I think Jesus is a bit of all three.

Anyone who studies history will soon learn that it is "the lies of the victors". My faith isn't based on whether or not someone rose from the dead, it's based on whether or not the teachings of this supposed person can make my life better, and the lives of those I touch better. That's what matters to me.

I told myself years ago, that if they were to find the remains of Jesus, I'd still be a Christian. They'd still have to prove to me that he didn't teach what he did. Someone taught the basics of Christian belief. It's stuck in some form throughout the years. It fits for me, as much as other people's faiths fit for them.

There are folks who can't sleep at night unless they know they're in the RIGHT religion. I don't care about that. When I die, if I'm wrong, I hope God is merciful enough to see that I tried to do the best I could do with what I knew. I would hope that a meaningful life lived, with an awesome legacy would mean far more than a denomination. But that's just me.