Posted on 06/10/2007 7:24:29 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Not really, no. I would ask that you read your interlocutor's claim again. "Don't do as I say" etc. is an adage in the form of a moral critique. It suggests hypocrisy. What your interlocutor actually wrote is more akin to "I don't know--or cannot precisely articulate--what great art is, but I know it when I see it." Rather like the supreme court justice who famously claimed that he could not define obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it. This may sound odd on its face, but a lot our knowledge about the world reduces to these sorts of un- or pre-articulate responses. A specialist--say, a theologian or an expert in canon law--may be able to articulate the case more precisely. But we can't all be specialists, and just because we are not specialists does not mean that our judgments and verdicts should not count.“I don’t know with absolute certainty that what I believe is correct, but I know with absolute certainty that Mormon beliefs are wrong.”>>>> TG A20's rejoinder: Very closely akin to ‘don’t do as I do, do as I say’.
re: 304
I have asked questions about the so far unproven opinions concerning the “heresies” you claim against Mormons.
Is this a ONE way street??
Will you now...
...asked questions about the so far unproven opinions concerning the “heresies” the LDS members claim against Christianity?
>>>> I asked you people for clarification and the foundation (proof) of your accusations: nothing more. So far nothing.
As to the “heresies” the Mormons allegedly claim against Christianity, you have to ask a Mormon. <<<
re: 308
“So much for turning the other cheek!”
>>>> HAHAHAHA Right! I gave up on that one years ago. I just couldn’t see letting rude and viscious meatheads get away unanswered with their arrogant, bullying behavior: it just a’in’t my style.
re: 309
re: You’re right there, too.
re: 313
Then how come the attacks on me for asking questions and for proof of the accusations being flung around? Not that I care, but it makes me wonder when someone is going to come up with something other than opinions.
I have an ides!!!! Why don’t we compare histories of some churches and their behavior? Maybe we can get somewhere with that, instead of going around in circles with only opinions and seemingly unpalatable definitions.
re: 315
No truer words wsere ever spoken.
re: 317
Maybe you’re in over your depth....friend.
>>>> Oh no!! Not another Asclepy baby. Let the games begin. <<<
FWIW-
>>>> which is zilch> <<<
re: 321
Get lost.
Get lost.I would ask that since you have nothing to contribute to this discussion that you please--and I write this with all due respect--consider participating elsewhere. "Get lost" hardly constitutes a contribution to the sum of human knowledge, nor does it address any of the points or issues that I or your interlocutor raised.
If you are genuinely seeking discussion of the ‘alleged’ heresies, it would be vital to have a concept of what you acknowledge as authority from which definitions of doctrine and orthodoxy arise ... let me know your foundational orthodoxy and I’ll gladly address the hereseis I perceive, relying upon the orthodoxy you acknowledge. If you will not share that piece of data —what you acknowledge as source for authority— this exchange process will be nothing more than you reacting in sniping fashion to what you perceive as bullying rhetoric.
Why don’t we compare histories of some churches and their behavior?Here is the problem, as I see it, with your proposal: it does not address any of the issues raised in this important discussion. Please try to follow me: The most perfect and upright moral exemplar stands as proof of precisely nothing. For example: You can be a good and upright atheist. Does it follow that atheism is in some sense true? Well, no, at least not on its face. Doctrinal issues must be addressed on doctrinal grounds, wouldn't you say? Therefore: I think what we need to do--IMHO--is to try to focus on issues that address the question at hand, and try to avoid distractions like the one you suggest.
Been underwater many times myself.........
Maybe I'm wrong.....Wouldn't be the first time.
let me know your foundational orthodoxyI addressed this in my first post to this thread. First, I am a Jew, raised fairly secularly but now baal tshuva (my family and I are trying to become more observant). But as I understand it normative (or orthodox) Christianity discovers its doctrinal foundation in its historical creeds and canons, e.g. the canon of scripture, The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Creed of St. Athanasius. It is on these grounds that I would argue that Mormons are not Christians in the same sense that Manicheans are not Christians. Does this mean that Mormons are bad people, that Mormons have no share in the world to come, that Mormons should be excluded from civic life etc., etc.--certainly not. I'm about as Christian as any Mormon, and I do not believe that I am a bad person, or that I should be excluded from civic life etc., etc. Does this help?
re: 329
“I would ask that since you have nothing to contribute to this discussion that you please—and I write this with all due respect—consider participating elsewhere.”Get lost” hardly constitutes a contribution to the sum of human knowledge,....”
>>>> Look who’s talking. HAHAHAHA All you contribute is lessons on how to be obnoxious. <<<
“... nor does it address any of the points or issues that I or your interlocutor raised.”
>>>> That comes under the heading of NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS — ulesss you own this forum. So get lost, pest. <<<
I asked you people for clarification and the foundation (proof) of your accusations: nothing more. So far nothing.So far nothing that you will not dismiss in advance on grounds that none of your interlocutors can understand. I offered clarification, several others have offered clarification--what we get in response are groundless dismissals, accusations, and insults. Here is the point: The doctrinal bases of normative Christianity and the Mormon confession contradict one another. The two are inconsistent. It is as simple as that. I am left to wonder if it is clarification that you really want, or if you have other motives. Are you trolling this thread perhaps? And for what purpose? This is only a surmise of course. But your behavior invites speculation.
That comes under the heading of NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS — ulesss you own this forum. So get lost, pest.No, I do not own this forum. But I respect those who do. And I respect the people who gather here. So my question becomes this: Why do you insist on disrepecting this site and the people who use it as a place to discuss their different points of view? I wonder if you could at least try to stay on topic, and try to address the issues raised in the discussion calmly, and if not objectively, at least respectfully?
re: 267
“Again, is there any reason to post such ugliness?”
>>>> Ana, again, I’ll say, ‘yes there is.’ That disgusting troll keeps postering me — see # 329, and if somebody can’t get him off my back, things are liable to really get nasty. <<<
see # 329, and if somebody can’t get him off my back, things are liable to really get nasty.#329 is simply me, asking you,--asking you, not telling you--politely, with all due respect, to please try to comport yourself appropriately--not for my sake, but out of respect for this forum. Friend, please understand: I am not on your back as you put it. I want to discuss the issues raised here. And I am not trolling!--of the two of us, who has contributed more to this important dialog? Why, me, of course.
re; 339
Now try real hard to understand this - you are an egotistical, pompous windbag, I find you thoroughly revolting, and wish to have absolutely nothing further to do with you.
LEAVE ME ALONE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.