Dog-Eat-Dog World

[clbent04]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And, I said that as well.  I'm beginning to feel like you're only cherry picking statements from my posts.  It's not like I make mile long posts.

I find it impossible to believe your interpretation since so many prophets have been wealthy individuals.  Would it help if I gathered multiple quotes on the Law of Consecration?  I can do it. But it will take time that I don't wish to put into it if you're just going to ignore it anyway.

Im not ignoring anything, I’m just addressing what remains questionable to me. I’m reading and thinking about everything you’re writing. Some things I agree with, others I don’t 

[Guest]

Just now, clbent04 said:

Im not ignoring anything, I’m just addressing what remains questionable to me. I’m reading and thinking about everything you’re writing. Some things I agree with, others I don’t 

So, when I say I disagree with your interpretation, and you decide to declare several posts later that apparently we disagree on the interpretation, that was... what... just a delayed reaction?

[the Ogre]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, when I say I disagree with your interpretation, and you decide to declare several posts later that apparently we disagree on the interpretation, that was... what... just a delayed reaction?

Straight up excitement, man. You know what it's like: you get super involved in something and you can't hear anything going on around you. Just getting deafened by rhetorical adrenaline. 

[clbent04]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, when I say I disagree with your interpretation, and you decide to declare several posts later that apparently we disagree on the interpretation, that was... what... just a delayed reaction?

I was responding to you when you gave me examples of how you live your life in relation to Luke 18:22, and I was trying to explain how I didn’t see it as the same thing. I then asked you what kind of invitation you would need to receive to live as a homeless, traveling missionary (or at least that was the intent of my question which I could have explained better) and you replied saying you thought you had made it clear to me already. But you were just reiterating how you live your life in relation to Luke 18:22, so instead of trying to refocus the conversation, I just left it at agree to disagree 

[clbent04]

36 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You've gotten confused with your quotes.  When I was responding to you, I quoted you.  You ignored that response and chose to quote a response that wasn't to you and attribute it to you because it fit your desired post better, I assume.  

My mind is quite made up and my posts are quite clear.

I’m asking you if that’s how you view me since you posted it on this thread along with other comments you made to me in the past.

[zil]

30 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I’m asking you if that’s how you view me since you posted it on this thread along with other comments you made to me in the past.

Those comments weren't made to you, they were made to "changed".  (Assuming you're talking about the comments about choosing to be miserable.)

[clbent04]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Those comments weren't made to you, they were made to "changed".  (Assuming you're talking about the comments about choosing to be miserable.)

I’m asking @Grunt if this is how he thinks of me as well since it jibes with other negative comments he’s made to me before. A simple answer would clear any confusion I have about why he posts on my questions, but no answer 

Edited January 2, 2018 by clbent04

[Grunt]

20 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I’m asking @Grunt if this is how he thinks of me as well since it’s jibes with other negative comments he’s made to me before. A simple answer would clear any confusion I have about why he posts on my questions, but no answer 

I don't know what I think of you.  I've asked questions to help form that opinion, but you've ignored them.  That's fine, since you have no obligation to answer.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Grunt

[clbent04]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't know what I think of you.  I've asked questions to help form that opinion, but you've ignored them.  That's fine, since you have no obligation to answer.  I think you have some pretty severe issues, though.

If your intent of posting is to help others as you said, I’d prefer if you didn’t contribute anything further to my questions as most of your comments come across as negative and judgemental to me. If your real intent is to help others, I think you would respect that knowing that I don’t find any value with what you say to me. This is a public forum so you’re free to completely ignore this request and we can continue sparring as we have, but maybe you’ll focus your efforts elsewhere knowing someone else may be more appreciative of your insights

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

If your intent of posting is to help others as you said, I’d prefer if you didn’t contribute anything further to my questions as most of your comments come across as negative and judgemental to me. If your real intent is to help others, I think you would respect that knowing that I don’t find any value with what you say to me. This is a public forum so you’re free to completely ignore this request and we can continue sparring as we have, but maybe you’ll focus your efforts elsewhere knowing someone else may be more appreciative of your insights

My intent for posting is to participate in a conversation.  While you may find no value in my posts, others reading this may.   I don't hold any disillusion that you could be helped by me, nor that you actually want help here.  There's an ignore option if you decide you don't want to read my posts.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Grunt

[clbent04]

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

My intent for posting is to participate in a conversation.  While you may find no value in my posts, others reading this may.   I don't hold any disillusion that you could be helped by me, nor that you actually want help here.  There's an ignore option if you decide you don't want to read my posts.

Alrighty then. There you have it

[askandanswer]

 A dog eat dog situation sounds like the ideal solution we have to a problem in northern parts of Australia, where feral dogs do massive damage to flocks of sheep and decimate the local wild life. If we could get them to eat each other we could make huge savings in the budget for the Department of Conservation and Parks.

[wenglund]

52 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

 A dog eat dog situation sounds like the ideal solution we have to a problem in northern parts of Australia, where feral dogs do massive damage to flocks of sheep and decimate the local wild life. If we could get them to eat each other we could make huge savings in the budget for the Department of Conservation and Parks.

I don't know about Australia, but here in the U.S., the feral political Left has started eating its own, accomplishing what the  passive political sheep on the establishment Right have seemed incapable of doing for years. If they keep it up, that may eventually save billions of dollars being spent further expanding an already way over bloated government.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

4 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I was responding to you when you gave me examples of how you live your life in relation to Luke 18:22, and I was trying to explain how I didn’t see it as the same thing. I then asked you what kind of invitation you would need to receive to live as a homeless, traveling missionary (or at least that was the intent of my question which I could have explained better) and you replied saying you thought you had made it clear to me already. But you were just reiterating how you live your life in relation to Luke 18:22, so instead of trying to refocus the conversation, I just left it at agree to disagree 

Apparently there is a severe communication barrier here.  I really have no idea what you're talking about.  If that is the source of any contention, I'll apologize for my part in it.  But I think it's fair to say I simply don't understand where you're coming from.

[clbent04]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently there is a severe communication barrier here.  I really have no idea what you're talking about.  If that is the source of any contention, I'll apologize for my part in it.  But I think it's fair to say I simply don't understand where you're coming from.

No harm done, just a misunderstanding that doesn’t need to be hashed out any further

[clbent04]

On 1/1/2018 at 7:39 PM, Grunt said:

My intent for posting is to participate in a conversation.  While you may find no value in my posts, others reading this may.   I don't hold any disillusion that you could be helped by me, nor that you actually want help here.  There's an ignore option if you decide you don't want to read my posts.

So just to be clear, you post on my questions not to help me answer my own question, but to help someone else who may have the same question. Makes a lot of sense considering you’ve misjudged me by my questions, but yet if someone else has the same question you’re here to help 

[Grunt]

7 hours ago, clbent04 said:

So just to be clear, you post on my questions not to help me answer my own question, but to help someone else who may have the same question. Makes a lot of sense considering you’ve misjudged me by my questions, but yet if someone else has the same question you’re here to help 

You're mistaken, but that's OK.  Read my posts again.  Maybe answer the questions I've asked.

[clbent04]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

You're mistaken, but that's OK.  Read my posts again.  Maybe answer the questions I've asked.

But that’s just it. Why do you think I want to answer your questions when I already know you have an unfounded bias against me?

[Guest]

On 1/1/2018 at 1:42 PM, clbent04 said:

I think we interpret Luke 18:22 differently, as well as it’s applicability 

So please clarify this for me.  What I'm inferring from your posts is that you believe that it is a commandment of the Lord to live in poverty for all our lives.  That is patently false doctrine. 

If you are interpreting something else, then please explain.

[clbent04]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So please clarify this for me.  What I'm inferring from your posts is that you believe that it is a commandment of the Lord to live in poverty for all our lives.  That is patently false doctrine. 

If you are interpreting something else, then please explain.

I don’t think it is a commandment. It’s a higher way of living to align ourselves closer to God for anyone ready and willing. I don’t think being a homeless, traveling missionary is reserved for those select men we read of in the New Testamnent. Anyone can accept the call who is ready and willing

Edited January 3, 2018 by clbent04

[Guest]

1 minute ago, clbent04 said:

I don’t think it is a commandment. It’s a higher way of living to align ourselves closer to God for anyone ready and willing. I don’t think being a homeless, traveling missionary is reserved for those select men we read of in the New Testamnent. Anyone can accept the call who is ready and willing

Ok, so it is not a commandment to live in poverty.  But you believe living in poverty is a way to get closer to God and it should be our goal?  Before I go on, I want to make sure I'm interpreting you correctly.

[clbent04]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok, so it is not a commandment to live in poverty.  But you believe living in poverty is a way to get closer to God and it should be our goal?  Before I go on, I want to make sure I'm interpreting you correctly.

Not a goal for everyone. Just those ready and willing. It’s like serving a standard 2-year Church mission. You don’t have to serve, but you and often those you come in contact with will be blessed if you do. Living in poverty is not the main focus. The main focus is sharing the message of Christ. So living as a traveling, homeless missionary is ONE very effective way we can further God’s work. We can align ourselves to God by taking other avenues, so maybe the homeless, traveling missionary isn’t the path for everyone. But I think it could be the path for at least some of us, some of the noble ones among us

Edited January 3, 2018 by clbent04

[Grunt]

34 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

But that’s just it. Why do you think I want to answer your questions when I already know you have an unfounded bias against me?

What is my unfounded bias?  I already responded that I don’t have an unfounded bias.  I do, however, believe you don’t answer the queations because those answers are the answers to your questions.  

Edited January 3, 2018 by Grunt

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

. So living as a traveling, homeless missionary is ONE very effective way we can further God’s work.

Have you ever been homeless? 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Not a goal for everyone. Just those ready and willing. It’s like serving a standard 2-year Church mission. You don’t have to serve, but you and often those you come in contact with will be blessed if you do. Living in poverty is not the main focus. The main focus is sharing the message of Christ. So living as a traveling, homeless missionary is ONE very effective way we can further God’s work. We can align ourselves to God by taking other avenues, so maybe the homeless, traveling missionary isn’t the path for everyone. But I think it could be the path for at least some of us, some of the noble ones among us

Actually, it IS a commandment for all young men to serve a mission when of age.

But back on point, ANY commandment is for "those who are ready."  We're all required to obtain our endowments "when ready."  In fact, it is so much a requirement that we have vicarious ordinances for the dead.  It is as vital as being baptized.  But we are simply not allowed to go to the temple until we are ready.

So, when you say "some of the most noble among us" will take this path, how is that different than the "goal" we should all be striving for?

Now, back to the poverty thing.  Remember your first post?  At first, I thought you were just denouncing the "dog-eat-dog" mentality we see so readily in the world today.  That is, after all, the title of this thread.  But then you seemed to be saying that just because we work to build wealth that necessarily means that we have a dog-eat-dog mentality.  This has nothing to do with the homeless missionary thing.  

I'm not complaining that you've changed the topic.  I'm just wondering how you felt your original question was answered when it has nothing to do with this.