Its really a shame how insecurity can lead people to using someone’s death to further their own beliefs. This story has nothing to do with religion. Would you be concerned for the victims if the perpetrator had not been a Mormon?
I think there are two ways to deal with a religion you dont like or have left. You can try and convert those members to what you believe, or you can find every example of someone related to that religion acted badly in order to justify yourself and have a feeling of righteousness. But only one of those options brings people to Christ.
Well, by all means, Sam, please lecture us all from your pulpit on precisely where religion begins and where it ends.
Are their "prescribed" "religious" times?
Is it Sunday, or will you cater to 7th -Day Adventists & Jews & say it's Saturday. Or both?
And what about the true earlier Sabbath...which wasn't just Saturday but sundown Friday til sundown Saturday. Is that "religious" time -- but the rest of the week is "secular?"
Are "religious" people only "religious" when they DO religious things?
Are Christians only occasionally "Christians?"
Is there such a reality in God's eyes as part-time "Christians" or part-time "Mormons?" Really?
Where's your chapter&verse on that one, Raider Sam?
Does that come from the first book of Raider Samuel, 3:16?
Is a Satanist who murders for religious reasons acting religiously? Or no?
Are you able to sort that all out for people?
On all future Satanist-based murders, you'll be able to crystal ball it for us & say, "You know on that given hour, the Satanist was acting pretty secularly, and, hey, he committed murder. But you know, it had NOTHING to do with his religion."???
What about Mormons who killed in the 19th century -- for example the 1850s -- who used the Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement" as the motivation?
Do you know exactly what Gribble's motive was? (Since you seem to know all things pertaining to this case, please share)
Some people claim the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 had NOTHING to do with the Mormon religion. So should all references to "Mormon" regarding on that matter be stricken from the record?
Are you going to take your white-out and wipe out all references to "Mormon" from all history books about that massacre because of your obsessive need to protect Mormons?
If not, why not?
Are you going to go on your castigating crusade and question all historians who have mentioned "Mormons" in conjunction with the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Yes? No? You refuse to answer these questions on the ground that it might incriminate your two-faced approach to things?
If not, why not?
Where's your crusade consistency?
If you're going all out to de-link Mormons from any same-sentence tie-in to murders, then have at it! Get busy! There are a LOT of articles, books, online content that mentions a LOT of Mormon-based crime! Since you are so 100% sure-- like omni-science sure -- that ALL of that crime has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Mormon faith, and if you are so SECURE in that position, by all means...please explain how much other work you've done to erase all that supposed "nonsense" by writers & historians & journalists who have the audacity to go against Raider Sam's all-knowing will that Mormonism should be censored out of all that content!
And if you haven't, please explain why I am your lone target re: your de-linking campaign?
Also, please explain why you are more provoked by my actions than by a Gribble character stabbing/slashing two victims up to 50 times? Why have you initiated so many posts about my behavior -- but you don't seem to be too provoked over Gribble's?
You know last week I was listening to Dennis Prager on his call-in show. Prager, of course, is a conservative Jewish talk-show host. Prager told a caller that he was rather disappointed that so much political talk gets into one person questioning another's motive -- instead of the other's position.
Prager made it clear that conversations could better stay on the up & up if people would stop trying to play God (or what I would call play clairvoyant) & insert motives into the other's behavior. Prager even went further than I would on that matter...in that I think you can at times ASK [that's ASK, not ASSUME] what somebody's motive is...Prager didn't even think you should ask...even according to the context of that call -- which was a brother-to-brother story being told by the caller.
How much more so shouldn't we assume motives of complete or near-complete strangers?
So. Sam. When you say that the apparent goal of somebody is to self-"justify" & "have a feeling of righteousness" -- are you superimposing motives there?
What's your basis of this special gnosis -- this knowledge of what others' motives are?
How are you able to actually reach in and ascertain this inner "feeling" somebody else has?
Do you realize why FR has a guideline about mind-reading?
How does that guideline differ from you claiming that if somebody is negative toward somebody else's religion, the ONLY option you allow for (the other "way" you mentioned), is a feelings-based motivation of (self) righteous justification?
Why is this post of yours so assumption-heavy that you can clairvoyance the feelings of all others who dare mention negative things about religious others?
Are you consistent, Sam, in applying such "feelings of righteousness" & self-justification as superimposed motives onto other people?
How do we know you're assigning motives and engaging in mind-reading? You used the words "in order to". "In order to" is a PURPOSE phrase. You are telling the world that you know the very inner-feeling based purpose of why others "find...example[s] of" religious others "act[ing] badly."
Sam and all: Please read the passage below that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians. Or at least just the first verse. The context here is that Paul thinks the Galatians are acting badly re: their legalism.
According to Raider Sam's perceived theological mousetrap, Paul had two options in dealing with the Galatians:
Option 1: Either persuade "those members to what" Paul believed was the best course to pursue.
Option 2: Or, if he dared to focus on how the Galatians "acted badly," then the apostle Paul MUST be guilty of "justify[ing]" himself and "hav[ing] a feeling of righteousness."
Here's the passage:
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is EVERYONE who does not continue to do EVERYTHING written in the Book of the Law.” (Gal. 3:1-6, 10)
Well, whoa! The apostle Paul called the Galatians "foolish." And "bewitched," too! Whoa!! So, Sam. You've left no other alternative as to why anybody would ever practice a "tough love" approach to accountability: Apparently, the apostle Paul found a religious example of people acting "badly," and simply -- per your inner gnosis diagnosis -- must have had this need to "justify" himself and exert (self) "righteousness" over & above the Galatians!
ALL: Don't you just "love it" when we have such modern-day clairvoyants who are able to psycho-analyze complete strangers from such a distance??? (Ah, the marvels of modern technology!)
Oh and Whoa! Look out, Paul...(I guess we know who'll be rebuking the guy who wrote half of the New Testament when we get to heaven, eh?)