Do you include me in your list of “self-righteous jerks”? You did say “I can’t engage with any of you.”.
I’m tired and irritable and not in the mood to put up with how liberals describe my views on abortion. You’re not part of that crowd. This thread is just not fun anymore, and this is why hardly post in it anymore.
Oh, I love how the enlightened Left loves to tell those who are pro-life what their stance really is. I can’t tell you just how all these idiotic oversimplifications piss me off! I can’t engage with any of you. This thread used to be a place for intelligent debate. Now it’s just stereotyping ideologies by a number of self-righteous jerks.
But I’m a Cancer.
As a whole, all Canadians are. The sooner we excise them, the better this world will be!
Lol oops! I finally did it! I didn’t even want to post anything! But now that I did, I’ll jus leave it.
JEDIT: And a double post! This is why I don’t usually use iPhones.
Lol oops! I finally did it! I didn’t even want to post anything! But now that I did, I’ll jus leave it.
This editor uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
Preview this post to see the results.
For more details, see this Markdown demo.
Wired blocks
Sheared locks
Those are my only choices?
I suppose you can also choose aye, affirmative, yes, concur, negative, no, and “Suck it up, buttercup.”
Can I choose “My little buttercup has the sweetest smile”?
Oh, I love that in-famous song!
Many of my patients are petty criminals. I see them daily. It’s definitely perception-altering when you realize how many criminals live in your hick town.
Separation of Church of State: what does it mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
Ooh, I can’t resist giving my two cents here…
Freedom of worship is not equivalent to freedom of religion, despite the opinion of many non-religious or nominally religious people. Therefore, I firmly believe that politicians must be allowed to let their religous beliefs influence their policies, since for them, it is no different than a non-religious person allowing their political beliefs to affect their decisions.
So I think a Catholic politician, assuming they are actually Catholic (i.e. believe everything the Church teaches), would be obliged to oppose abortion, regardless of what the majority felt was right within their constituency. It would be wrong for such a politician to promise that he would vote to maintain the status quo (which in Canada is 0 laws restricting abortion). On the other hand, such a politician would be wrong to vote to impose aspects of Catholicism on the general population that are only required of Catholics, such as abstaining from work on Sunday (and these two categories sort of blend into each other, so there’s definitely a grey area).
I also think those working in any public institution, whether they be a teacher, a senator, or a civil servant, should be free to express their religious beliefs openly and freely, provided they do not actually impose such beliefs on others. The idea that religion is a private affair that ought to be left at home when one goes to work is absurd, in my opinion, and preventing people from bringing their religion into the public sphere is a violation of their religious rights, as far as I am concerned.
Well put and I agree, my friend.
In God I trust. In man claiming to speak for God, I give them a case-by-case evaluation.
But the question is really about allowing man to speak about God in the public setting, rather than speaking for him: Ten Commandments in front of court houses, references to Deity on currency, mentions of God in political discourse…that sort of thing.
Those are my only choices?
I suppose you can also choose aye, affirmative, yes, concur, negative, no, and “Suck it up, buttercup.”
Yea or nay?
Seems like a bit of a loaded question. It’s pretty hard to pin down my least favorite thing about Mormonism as a religion. I love it! I believe it!
That said, there are cultural aspects associated with Mormonism that annoy me, particularly the Utah brand of Mormon subculture. They tend to be somewhat exclusive and can leave non-Mormons feeling left out. Things like premarital sex and pregnancy or smoking can often lead to ostracism.
Additionally, I wish the Church were more willing to confront difficult aspects of our history or doctrine. For instance, in the past the Church had some racist policies in place. Only recently did we offer a substantial and frank statement on the topic, owning up to the misguided policies. I wish we would handle that more often. Another example is that some teachings promoted by past leaders are no longer taught and were never accepted as doctrine. Nevertheless, there was a big push from the very top on some of them. They quickly fizzled out, but nevertheless, they left an impact. I wish we could address these sorts of things at church instead of waiting for someone to read about it on an unfriendly website. I understand the reasoning, not wanting to expose people to things that are hard to explain when their doctrinal understanding remains immature. Still, most people will learn of it eventually, and I wish we controlled the discussion more instead of those hostile to our faith who wish to misrepresent us.
In a similar vein, there are doctrines we still teach but that we are a little more cautious in how we share them. For instance, we believe man and God are of the same “species,” if you will. We believe we can become like God some day. We still teach this doctrine first introduced by Joseph Smith, but very carefully, and usually only delve into it when we know the audience is more familiar with the basics. In the past, I felt we weren’t so shy about such things. Again, it leaves the critics too many opportunities to make us sound like a sci-fi religion: “Oh, you know Mormons believe they will get their own planets some day!” Mormon scholars of the past would hit the heavier doctrine without shyness; scholars like B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., and the like. These men would discuss these heavier doctrines in prominent places, such as at the pulpit during general conference (a time when the entire Church gets the opportunity to listen to or read the words of our leaders). Now, general conferences tend to be more like lengthy devotionals. Yes, they are inspiring, but they lack the depth they once had.
One final thing: we are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is something we have been pushing for more in emphasis, particularly in general conference. Still, there are some members who dwell too much on our exotic and distinguishing doctrines, when really the core doctrine is that Jesus Christ is our Savior. We are Christians first, and all that other stuff second. As our founding prophet Joseph Smith said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
^brownie points!
Mine? Everyone else’s?
Separation of Church of State: what does it mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
Yeah. There’s been two less leap days in this universe.
Did I miss the grammatical reform? In this new universe, does there’s represent a contraction for there have? Has less finally superseded fewer in terms of defining a smaller amount of something quantifiable?
Dang! I worked so hard to learn all those rules!
Just once? Man, I’m slipping!
This reminds me of when I was playing Mad Gabs and annoying everyone 😄
Dawkins, no doubt.
The Jesus picture is by Mormon artist Del Parson and is the official LDS picture of Christ.
Pertinent to this thread: My morning sun is the drug that brings me here.
I cringed.
Joy Division references are cool but Joy Division’s successor’s references are not? At least someone appreciates good music.