Fether

Church policy change on same sex marriage

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

See, this is an example of what @Scott was talking about.

I am not even a democrat or, really even a liberal (being an independent, though anyone that is right of center but not further seems to be seen as liberal here) and people take umbrage when listing stereotypes...but NOTE...they don't take it when the same type of stereotype is stated against the other side just as strongly...

The difficulty people have is that they relate their political party to their religion...aka...idolatry...but in place of an idol is the political party and all others are the false religion.

Yet, I see it constantly among people these days, especially among those who claim to be Christian. 

People put their party (Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) as their religion.  Not out loud, but through their actions.  They put their party on a pedestal so high that it might as well supersede their claimed religion, and any other is part of the enemy of their church, including anyone who is not part of their party or at least the party they feel they should identify with.

Each party has it's share of those who have values that correspond to the Lord's values, and many who do not.  None of them are in step with the Lord's Laws these days, and it is rather crazy how far people go to believe in a political ideology to the point they will defend it stronger then their own religious tendencies and blame other parties more strongly than they would the enemies who seek to tear down the church.

I think you're confused about how stereotyping works.

Statistical facts are not stereotypes. They're facts.

It becomes a stereotype when when you apply statistical facts to an individual.

As in -- statistically men are stronger than women -- that's a fact. A stereotype would be -- you're a women so you must be weak.

Statistically conservatives give more to charity. That doesn't mean every liberal is stingy. That doesn't mean every conservative is generous. It's just a statistically.

You said conservatives are "...against mercy, helping the poor, and charity". If you had said "some conservatives are" then it might be true (but pointless), but you didn't. You simply said the conservatives are against charity. It might also be true if you said, "conservatives are against governmental programs for helping the poor, being in favor of personal charity instead". That would generally be true also. But the statistics show, factually, that conservatives are not "against" charity, helping the poor, and mercy.

And then you state my post as evidence of things that are nowhere in my post at all. Your points:

You claim my post is an example of not taking umbrage when a stereotype is stated strongly against liberals.

How is my post an example of that? I didn't not take umbrage at something wrongly said about liberals. My post had nothing to do with liberals. It was correcting an erroneous statement you made.

You claim that my post is an example of relating my political party to my religion and call me an idolater.

How is my post an example of that? And how is it you feel that claiming statistics show that conservatives aren't actually against charity justifies you in calling me an idolater?

You claim my post is an example of a Christian putting their party as their religion through my actions.

How on earth is my post an example of that?

You claim my post is putting my party on a pedestal so high that it might as well supersede my claimed religion.

How is my post an example of that?

And my post is an example of how any other party an people who affiliate therewith are enemies of my church.

Seriously? What? How is my post an example of that?

This is the sort of thing you say that causes me to rarely interact with your posts. The extreme reading between the lines and making up all this garbage that isn't even remotely inherent in what I said. You make this crap up and put words in my mouth and accuse me of worshiping idols and caring more about the Republican party than The Church of Christ because I said, what again?

I stated that, statistically, conservatives give more to charity.

And how is that an example of what Scot's talking about? He said conservatives condemn gays but won't condemn Trump for adultery.

Seriously -- there's a reason why I don't discuss things with you. This sort of response is SO ridiculous, has no basis in reason or evidence. It's just a bunch of random garbage you spouted back at me that has absolutely nothing to do with the reply I gave.

So AMAZINGLY ridiculous.

If you're any kind of a decent man at all you will apologize.

I can't believe you would go so low as to call me an idolater in response to my pointing out a statistic.

SERIOUSLY?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And shame on @LiterateParakeet for thanking that post that so shamelessly twists everything and accuses me of idolatry for merely pointing out a statistic. After I specifically pointed out my awareness of your good intentions you jump on the bandwagon that I'm nothing but an idolater because I believe, as statistics show, that Christian conservatives tend towards giving more in charity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

 

Florida State University?

LOL! Both are schools you couldn't get into. They require the ability to read above a fourth grade level. 

Well, 2nd grade level for FSU. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And shame on @LiterateParakeet for thanking that post that so shamelessly twists everything and accuses me of idolatry for merely pointing out a statistic. After I specifically pointed out my awareness of your good intentions you jump on the bandwagon that I'm nothing but an idolater because I believe, as statistics show, that Christian conservatives tend towards giving more in charity?

I don't even know which post you're referring to. To be honest I haven't followed the thread very closely. Don't read to much into a like or thumbs up. I "like" things for many reasons, but it's never to "dis" someone. If I were going to dis someone, I'd do it verbally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think you're confused about how stereotyping works.

Statistical facts are not stereotypes. They're facts.

It becomes a stereotype when when you apply statistical facts to an individual.

As in -- statistically men are stronger than women -- that's a fact. A stereotype would be -- you're a women so you must be weak.

Statistically conservatives give more to charity. That doesn't mean every liberal is stingy. That doesn't mean every conservative is generous. It's just a statistically.

You said conservatives are "...against mercy, helping the poor, and charity". If you had said "some conservatives are" then it might be true (but pointless), but you didn't. You simply said the conservatives are against charity. It might also be true if you said, "conservatives are against governmental programs for helping the poor, being in favor of personal charity instead". That would generally be true also. But the statistics show, factually, that conservatives are not "against" charity, helping the poor, and mercy.

And then you state my post as evidence of things that are nowhere in my post at all. Your points:

You claim my post is an example of not taking umbrage when a stereotype is stated strongly against liberals.

How is my post an example of that? I didn't not take umbrage at something wrongly said about liberals. My post had nothing to do with liberals. It was correcting an erroneous statement you made.

You claim that my post is an example of relating my political party to my religion and call me an idolater.

How is my post an example of that? And how is it you feel that claiming statistics show that conservatives aren't actually against charity justifies you in calling me an idolater?

You claim my post is an example of a Christian putting their party as their religion through my actions.

How on earth is my post an example of that?

You claim my post is putting my party on a pedestal so high that it might as well supersede my claimed religion.

How is my post an example of that?

And my post is an example of how any other party an people who affiliate therewith are enemies of my church.

Seriously? What? How is my post an example of that?

This is the sort of thing you say that causes me to rarely interact with your posts. The extreme reading between the lines and making up all this garbage that isn't even remotely inherent in what I said. You make this crap up and put words in my mouth and accuse me of worshiping idols and caring more about the Republican party than The Church of Christ because I said, what again?

I stated that, statistically, conservatives give more to charity.

And how is that an example of what Scot's talking about? He said conservatives condemn gays but won't condemn Trump for adultery.

Seriously -- there's a reason why I don't discuss things with you. This sort of response is SO ridiculous, has no basis in reason or evidence. It's just a bunch of random garbage you spouted back at me that has absolutely nothing to do with the reply I gave.

So AMAZINGLY ridiculous.

If you're any kind of a decent man at all you will apologize.

I can't believe you would go so low as to call me an idolater in response to my pointing out a statistic.

SERIOUSLY?!

Simply put, it is a stereotype of conservatives...whether you really like it or not...ESPECIALLY a stereotype of Republicans.

That you take offense at it, but not at the stereotypes of others...is kind of interesting...don't you think.  I was an equal opportunity stereotyper there.

Even more so, you then try to take "facts" as you present them (Whether they are actually FACTS or not) to try to say that...hey...you're politics are what are "true" rather than simply what you feel like.

I'm not attacking you, but your post was a prime example.

It even proved the post to a certain degree.  I said equally stereotypical things of both sides of the equation...but rather than seeing the balance you immediately take offense.

It is kind of hilarious to a degree, not that we should be laughing.  However, it does typify in some ways exactly what I predicted...at least from one side.  People will try to lynch you if you don't see their point...and as I said things about BOTH sides...the logical thing would be that everyone would want to lynch me. 

Ironically, not many have done that so I guess that speaks a lot...but it is not surprising that at least one or two would be offended by what was basically an appraisal of BOTH sides of the political argument.

That brought up a good jumping off point which was NOT pointed at you specifically (though perhaps I should have pointed that out), but it brings up something we see here.  People get up in arms about POLITICAL items so massively as if it were their own personal faith and testimony.

Which brings up WHY people get so up in arms on this type of thing.

It's not suppose to be our religion, so why do we treat it as highly as such?

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't even know which post you're referring to. To be honest I haven't followed the thread very closely. Don't read to much into a like or thumbs up. I "like" things for many reasons, but it's never to "dis" someone. If I were going to dis someone, I'd do it verbally. 

What, @LiterateParakeet? You mean you aren't crying in agony over this?! How heartless! Shame! Shame! Shame on you! 

I love when anonymous strangers on the internet try to "shame" someone else. Like it gravely matters to the person they are accusing or will change this persons behavior. What? You mean no one cares who I admonish or try to shame? Oh. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What, @LiterateParakeet? You mean you aren't crying in agony over this?! How heartless! Shame! Shame! Shame on you! 

I love when anonymous strangers on the internet try to "shame" someone else. Like it gravely matters to the person they are accusing or will change this persons behavior. What? You mean no one cares who I admonish or try to shame? Oh. 

Strangers? I've spent more time conversing with many of you than I have people I work with on a daily basis.

Of course my expectations that anyone when called on a truly egregious post (or the "liking/thanking" thereof) will admit they went too far and apologize is, indeed, foolish.

Heaven forbid we are kind to each other. Or apologize for offending each other.

The proper response is, obviously, mocking cruelty. Good job.👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't even know which post you're referring to.

This post:

Where I was accused of idolatry and placing politics above religion for stating that, statistically, conservatives give more to charity.

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Don't read to much into a like or thumbs up. I "like" things for many reasons, but it's never to "dis" someone. If I were going to dis someone, I'd do it verbally. 

The next time someone calls you an idolater and accuses you of caring more about politics than God or your faith and I give it a "thanks" see how it makes you feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I was an equal opportunity stereotyper there.

You specifically said my post was an example of all several horrible things. That is not making a generic stereotype of Republicans (A party to which I do not even belong). You specifically called my post an example of idolatry and putting politics above God.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not attacking you

Well, of course not. Telling someone their post is an example of idolatry isn't an attack. <_<

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is kind of hilarious to a degree,

Great. So you accuse me of caring about politics more than God, and then find it hilarious when I'm offended.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

People get up in arms about POLITICAL items so massively as if it were their own personal faith and testimony.

Do you really believe I'm offended because of politics? You told me I was an idolater and that I didn't care about my faith and my religion if it got in the way of other lesser things.

There are very, very few things I get offended at more than someone telling me I don't care about God or that I consider something more important than Him and His gospel.

Can you really not understand why that was offensive?

Apparently you're so bent on attacking politics that you cannot even see what was actually offensive and why I'm up in arms.

If you tell me my view on any political subject is wrong then fine. We'll disagree and all is well. When you tell me I care more about it than God then I'm going to call you on that bull crap statement, and point out how ridiculously offensive it is.

You're doubling down on your distortion, accusing me of something else that is not true. I am not up in arms about politics. I am up in arms about someone basely accusing me of not care enough about God and His gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So seriously...let's parse this so you can hopefully see how ridiculous this is:

On 4/12/2019 at 12:28 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Well, as an independent (though super liberal comparatively to those on the boards here most likely) I see BOTH sides as the epitome of evil!!!!

I agree. (Maybe not the "epitome". But both sides are evil.)

Quote

Republicans and Democrats are just to opposing sides of the same evil.

I agree that both sides are evil.

Quote

One side is against mercy, helping the poor, and charity where there are no RICH OR POOR among us.

I disagree that conservatives/republicans, on the whole, are any more "against" mercy, helping the poor, and charity than liberal/democrats are, or that it's a defining point of the party.

I agree, however, that both sides are selfish and greedy and care more about power and money than they actually do about people.

Quote

The other side is against morality, living the laws of chastity, and respect and regard for life (well, some life at least) while promoting hedonism.

I agree. Though many republicans are against morality and living the law of chastity too.

Quote

Whether Republican or Democrat, both parties are probably far more similar in many areas than many would tend see.  They are far more centrist in their views than those on the really far right or really far left. 

I agree.

Quote

This is why Clinton was a warhawk while Trump was making statements about getting the US out of foreign wars/battles in Syria and other areas.  Normally people would view Republicans as warhungry and democrats as peaceniks. 

I agree.

Quote

This is why when one party is in power the other harps about balanced budgets and the like, but then they suddenly trade places when the positions are reversed.

I agree.

Quote

Two sides of the same coin except for a few differences in regards to how they promote things (such as in regards to law of chastity, or the usage of charity ideas for each party).

I agree.

 

Can you see now how ridiculous it was for you to say that my post was an example of any of your claims?

I actually agree with every point you made except one, which I only pointed out a statistical correction on -- and only disagree with it being a defining point of republicans that doesn't apply to democrats as well.

Your implication that my single point of clarification was an example of idolatry, caring more for politics than God, and an example of all the nasty stuff Scott's talking about was legitimately stupid.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Folk Prophet  oh that post. I "liked" that because I have thought much the same about people I know...on both sides of the political isle.

No offense intended here, but I don't read your posts. The only posts of yours that I read was the ones that tagged me.  I didn't pay attention to whom JohnsonJones was talking to, I liked his post for its content. I do think sometimes people change what they understand about religion to fit their political views.  

If I like something you wrote than its about you...otherwise don't make any assumptions. 

I'm done with this conversation. 

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly JohnsonJones' post ticked me off royally.

I've been nastier and grumpier than I feel is appropriate.

For that I apologize to @JohnsonJones, @LiterateParakeet, and @MormonGator.

I'm going to step away until I'm not so emotionally stirred up.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And how is that an example of what Scot's talking about? He said conservatives condemn gays but won't condemn Trump for adultery.

Once again and I have said this several times my posts said many or some conservatives (depending on the post), not all conservatives. Is there any way that I can kindly ask you to stop misquoting me?   It would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks.  🙂

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Clearly JohnsonJones' post ticked me off royally.

I've been nastier and grumpier than I feel is appropriate.

For that I apologize to @JohnsonJones, @LiterateParakeet, and @MormonGator.

I'm going to step away until I'm not so emotionally stirred up.

I had thought to comment on whether people on the Left or the Right are more inclined to admit to their mistakes and apologize or not. But I figured it would be uncharitable and feed into certain stereotypes. 

So, I will simply express my admiration instead  for the graciousness of this apology. I trust it didn't kill you to say it.  :)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I had thought to comment on whether people on the Left or the Right are more inclined to admit to their mistakes and apologize or not. But I figured it would be uncharitable and feed into certain stereotypes. 

So, I will simply express my admiration instead  for the graciousness of this apology. I trust it didn't kill you to say it.  :)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have apologized to several members on this forum and will again.   

I didn't like being called stupid, ignorant, etc., or had someone referring to "people like Scott" by a certain person while I made no such assertions about anyone.  The person in question has made no apology to me, but continually insulted me and misrepresented what I posted, etc.  OK, it's my fault because we're not supposed to take offence. 

As far as your pot and kettle comment goes, yes I am the kettle.  I think all of us are probably hypocritical at times.  I don't know anyone who isn't.  

I must say though that this forum is pretty toxic at times and my last two posts say that I am no better.    But at least before now, I have at least tried to be civil.   My original post that apparently upset some was meant as only half serious as well and I made this clear.  

I apologize, but one thing I'd like to say is that I originally came to this forum for advice and to have some religious discussions.  It has become way too toxic for me and I haven't felt the spirit at all reading the forums.  Perhaps this isn't the place for it anyway.  Does anyone in this forum really feel the spirit while posting here?  I admit that I don't.   I hope that others do.

I guess the irony to all of this is that I have added to the toxicity.  I used to be a Sunbeam teacher and they are more reverent than I see a lot of us (myself included) being.  I guess that means it's time to go.

If I come to the forum and don't see much that uplifts me (which may be entirely my fault), then why am I even here?   I guess I have to answer for myself.

As for me, I'd really like to meet people like Mormon Gator or Literal Parakeet because they really seem to have things together.  They let things roll off their back a lot better than some others in this forum, including myself.   I guess the only uplifting thing I can see in this forum (which again, might be my fault), is that I should be more like them.

Thank you and have a good night.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 11:32 PM, Scott said:

I have apologized to several members on this forum and will again.   

I didn't like being called stupid, ignorant, etc., or had someone referring to "people like Scott" by a certain person while I made no such assertions about anyone.  The person in question has made no apology to me, but continually insulted me and misrepresented what I posted, etc.  OK, it's my fault because we're not supposed to take offence. 

As far as your pot and kettle comment goes, yes I am the kettle.  I think all of us are probably hypocritical at times.  I don't know anyone who isn't.  

I must say though that this forum is pretty toxic at times and my last two posts say that I am no better.    But at least before now, I have at least tried to be civil.   My original post that apparently upset some was meant as only half serious as well and I made this clear.  

I apologize, but one thing I'd like to say is that I originally came to this forum for advice and to have some religious discussions.  It has become way too toxic for me and I haven't felt the spirit at all reading the forums.  Perhaps this isn't the place for it anyway.  Does anyone in this forum really feel the spirit while posting here?  I admit that I don't.   I hope that others do.

I guess the irony to all of this is that I have added to the toxicity.  I used to be a Sunbeam teacher and they are more reverent than I see a lot of us (myself included) being.  I guess that means it's time to go.

If I come to the forum and don't see much that uplifts me (which may be entirely my fault), then why am I even here?   I guess I have to answer for myself.

As for me, I'd really like to meet people like Mormon Gator or Literal Parakeet because they really seem to have things together.  They let things roll off their back a lot better than some others in this forum, including myself.   I guess the only uplifting thing I can see in this forum (which again, might be my fault), is that I should be more like them.

Thank you and have a good night.  

I respect the apologies, and even more the healthy self-reflection and taking some responsibility. Well done. [thumbs up]

However, I have to say that I have participated in online discussion for nearly 3 decades,  across a variety of venues (politics, religion, etc.), and this board has been one of the mildest in my experience, which is unusual given the near invisibility of board moderating--which  tells me that the board participants her are generally uncommonly civil and keep themselves in check.

And, while there may be some name-calling and personal attacks on occasion, mostly it is good-natured ribbing or a well-intended wake-up call.

So, I am not seeing the toxicity, though I may be jaded.

However, I have noticed that various board participants have found the exchanges here somewhat off-putting because they haven't experience much in the way of challenges to their point of view, particularly challenges that are well reasoned and compelling. This is especially true of participants whose  views are more in line with popular culture,  and /or who are used to agreement, particularly among the majority to which they are a part. It can be rather jarring to come to a board where the majority, or at least the vocal majority, tend to stand contrary to pop culture.

Even still, it is not uncommon for many if not most of us to find various exchanges counterproductive--a waste of time, or a less meaningful use of our time. In that sense it may be viewed as toxic. Often, though, this is corrected by taking a much needed break from the board, or from certain topics, and even from certain board participants.

Anyway, as for feeling the Spirit,  in my experience it depends upon at least two things: 1) the topic. The more political and less religiously oriented the topic, the less likely I am to feel the Spirit, and vice versa--which makes sense 2) Where my head and heart are at as I participate. The more I relying on the Spirit to guide what I say,  the greater the likelihood that i will feel the Spirit.  And, the more I rely on the Spirit in trying to understand and glean value from what others say, the more I feel the Spirit. And, vice versa. 

I can honestly say that some interactions here, and some amazing posts, have rivaled, if not exceeded in spiritual enhancement what I have felt in Sunday School or other church meetings.

But, again, that may just be me.

The bottom line, from my lengthy experience, is that the toxicity or spirituality of what I experience here is largely dependent upon me rather than on others.  As with much of life, I am largely in control of the efficacy of my online experience. I tend to receive from the discussion table what I bring to the discussion table.

Just some things to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

However, I have to say that I have participated in online discussion for nearly 3 decades,  across a variety of venues (politics, religion, etc.), and this board has been one of the mildest in my experience, which is unusual given the near invisibility of board moderating--which  tells me that the board participants her are generally uncommonly civil and keep themselves in check.

@wenglund, your check is in the mail.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wenglund said:

However, I have to say that I have participated in online discussion for nearly 3 decades,  across a variety of venues (politics, religion, etc.), and this board has been one of the mildest in my experience, which is unusual given the near invisibility of board moderating--which  tells me that the board participants her are generally uncommonly civil and keep themselves in check

We've had a purge or two here over the years. Somehow they've let me keep posting here though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 1:50 PM, Scott said:

It's more than just the Middle East.  

I even outlined the Middle East for you:

middle.thumb.jpeg.2a7e53a0d1dfc5c67598e4ac9b609ae5.jpeg

 

 

Wouldn't that just totally suck if the Saudi Crown Prince turned out to be gay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now