Jesus questions for mormons

[Sparko]

So Jeff what was that golden rule thing again? Do unto others as you think they are doing unto you? Was that it?

[Cow Poke]

You don't have to be as bad as they are to still be part of their team.

Guilt by association.

You're just the new guy on their team, and they haven't yet corrupted you to the extent of your potential.

Give us time.

After you had joined CP in insulting me (CP said "I don't think he has a clue" and you replied " Well, we are talking about Jeff here") OC made one simple observation of what was OBVIOUS:

When I state that I THINK you "don't have a clue" about something, you see that as a PERSONAL ATTACK???? Wow, I have much more POWER than I ever thought!

Isn't it possible to say something sarcastically, and ALSO to mean it? In other words, insulting someone and then saying "For the sarcastically challenged, this was said sarcastically" doesn't make what you said okay, nor does it mean that you actually DON'T believe what you said about the person. It just means that you said it sarcastically.

Jeff, you really need to grow a thicker skin.

[One Bad Pig]

Do you hold the Sparko/CP/BTC/Cerebrum tag team to those expectations, too? 'Cause if you do, then I may have missed your remonstrations to them.

Have they been opining on true discipleship? Regardless, you may have missed remonstrations to Sparko, CP, and BTC because they're staff members under my (nominal) direction; as a general rule, that takes place in private. I also have much more extensive interaction with them outside of this forum, so I see sides of them which you may not see here. I don't know Cerebrum nearly as well; however, he is young, has had few opportunities for social interaction, and has demonstrated a willingness to improve his social skills. Further, I don't recall him posting anything particularly egregious.

I think my responses to the mockery can stand and still allow me to claim that I'm:

nowhere near sinless and perfect, I've been trying to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ for many years but I'm nowhere near completing the journey and progress often seems painfully slow--

without there being a problem.

You've yet to actually claim that. If you would, that would mitigate your apparent¹ hypocrisy.

George Zimmerman didn't need to have a clean criminal record before he was allowed to defend himself when he was attacked by Treyvon. So, to quote BTC, "Who cares" what you personally think of my recent posts that have been ripostes to insulting posts from The Gang? They really don't have any bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of my explanation of what discipleship should entail.

Once again, you're arguing against something I never said. I agree, they don't have any bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of your explanation. They do, however, have a bearing on the perception of your words vis-à-vis your actions. You often seem to go out of your way to take offense at the slightest perceived insult or find a nit to pick, and return fire with both barrels while ignoring everything else in the post. I've never said that you're not allowed to defend yourself. In my opinion, you might want to stop and think about other means of response before dumping accelerant on the fire, like turning the other cheek or giving a soft answer (Prov 15:1).

IMO, it's unreasonable to demand such a qualification from everyone before they can explain something. You are conflating pedagogy and behavior. It is well within reason for me to explain what I think it means to be a true disciple without having to meet your criteria for discipleship.

I have never made such a demand.

As far as this discussion of discipleship is concerned, I would only be guilty of hypocrisy if I had stated what it entails, and then added that I am a model of discipleship. Which I haven't done, and I see no need to pass your litmus test for acceptable discipleship before I am allowed to speak on the subject.

Actions speak louder than words, Jeff. One does not have to claim perfection in order to look like a hypocrite.

Your accusation of hypocrisy--that I didn't measure up to your standards--was what BEGAN this diversion.

I ask you again to stop misconstruing my statements in order to respond to them. I did no more than warn you that what you posted looked hypocritical in light of your recent posting history.


_________________________
¹ To clarify, I intend definition 5 here - “manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.”

[nrajeff]

So Jeff what was that golden rule thing again? Do unto others as you think they are doing unto you? Was that it?

That is not the Bible's version of it, but apparently your version of it is: "Do unto current LDS what you think Joseph Smith did to your great-great-grandparents."

[nrajeff]

Guilt by association.

Yeah, as in "Tony Romo and Kevin Kowalski are both 'guilty' of playing for the Dallas Cowboys." How dare I, right--saying that two people who obviously are on the same team, are on the same team?

When I state that I THINK you "don't have a clue" about something, you see that as a PERSONAL ATTACK????

Well, let's try it out on you and find out whether I am out of touch with reality:

"When it comes to understanding what it means to be and to behave as Christians should, I think CP doesn't have a clue."

No personal attack at all in that....right? None. At. All. Maybe you're under the mistaken impression that prefacing an insult with "I think" somehow magically makes whatever comes after that a NON-insult. The patent falsity of such an idea could be illustrated by any number of derogatory epithets about you, your wife, family, etc.....and then adding "I think" at the front end of them.

Wow, I have much more POWER than I ever thought!

No one here is denying that the devil has significant power. (I think.)

Jeff, you really need to grow a thicker skin.

No--YOU need to grow a conscience, and the less-caustic demeanor that might evolve as a result.

[lilpixieofterror]

No--YOU need to grow a conscience, and the less-caustic demeanor that might evolve as a result.

Seriously Jeff, grow up.

[Chrawnus]

Well, let's try it out on you and find out whether I am out of touch with reality:

"When it comes to understanding what it means to be and to behave as Christians should, I think CP doesn't have a clue."

No personal attack at all in that....right? None. At. All. Maybe you're under the mistaken impression that prefacing an insult with "I think" somehow magically makes whatever comes after that a NON-insult. The patent falsity of such an idea could be illustrated by any number of derogatory epithets about you, your wife, family, etc.....and then adding "I think" at the front end of them.

The statement "When it comes to X, P doesn't have a clue." Is not an insult under any reasonable definition of the word insult. The fact that P takes offense to the statement doesn't change that fact, though it does suggest that P either has some problems facing up to the truth, or alternatively, if the accusation is false, that he cares a tid bit too much what other people think about him.

[nrajeff]

Seriously Jeff, grow up.

Seriously, Pixie, butt out and shut up and mind your own business, or go boss your own family around if you can't fight the urge.

[nrajeff]

The statement "When it comes to X, P doesn't have a clue." Is not an insult under any reasonable definition of the word insult. The fact that P takes offense to the statement doesn't change that fact, though it does suggest that P either has some problems facing up to the truth, or alternatively, if the accusation is false, that he cares a tid bit too much what other people think about him.

Or maybe "C" thinks that people care what he thinks about this issue.

[Chrawnus]

Or maybe "C" thinks that people care what he thinks about this issue.

LPOT said it already, but apparently you need to hear it more than once: You need to grow up and stop acting like a spoiled little brat.

[lilpixieofterror]

Seriously, Pixie, butt out and shut up and mind your own business, or go boss your own family around if you can't fight the urge.

I don't boss my family around Jeff, you really need to grow up and stop acting like a little kid. At this point, you remind me of a whiny 14 year old who is crying because somebody called him a mean name on the internet. Seriously, is that all it takes for you to get all angry? Wow... I really would hate to see what would happen if you ran into something serious...

[Chrawnus]

I don't boss my family around Jeff, you really need to grow up and stop acting like a little kid. At this point, you remind me of a whiny 14 year old who is crying because somebody called him a mean name on the internet. Seriously, is that all it takes for you to get all angry? Wow... I really would hate to see what would happen if you ran into something serious...

Actually, he's more like a five year old.

[Sparko]

That is not the Bible's version of it, but apparently your version of it is: "Do unto current LDS what you think Joseph Smith did to your great-great-grandparents."

So why are you not following the bible's "version" of it, Jeff?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, as in "Tony Romo and Kevin Kowalski are both 'guilty' of playing for the Dallas Cowboys." How dare I, right--saying that two people who obviously are on the same team, are on the same team?

We're not getting paid near that much, though.

Well, let's try it out on you and find out whether I am out of touch with reality:

"When it comes to understanding what it means to be and to behave as Christians should, I think CP doesn't have a clue."

No personal attack at all in that....right? None. At. All.

Honestly, Jeff, I don't see that as a personal attack. I see it as you expressing an opinion based on extremely limited information, and I know it's not true, so it doesn't really bother me.

[Cerebrum123]

So you're saying that your behavior is more mature and less insult-based than CP's and Sparko's and BTC's behavior? I don't disagree with that, although you did once tell CP "So far it seems that we think in a similar way. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing though."

Anyway, I can agree with everything you said to OC in the following passage:

I can be a bit sarcastic, and I am very blunt when it comes to communication. Many people here on TWeb can be very harsh, and I try to avoid that, but I don't think what I said was anywhere near some of the stuff I have seen on here from others.



You don't have to be as bad as they are to still be part of their team. You're just the new guy on their team, and they haven't yet corrupted you to the extent of your potential. But I am happy to state that you don't come close to their level of hostility. You have taken, on average, a much more mature, reasonable, kinder approach. I have much more respect for you as a result. I can't find many examples to the contrary--they truly do seem to be few and far between, despite your stated feelings about LDSism being of the devil, more dangerous than radical Islam, etc.

There is a context to the "more dangerous", and that is that it is more dangerous on a SPIRITUAL level. I do NOT believe that Mormons are going to start blowing themselves and other people up anytime soon. I also think that things like Jehovah's Witnesses is more dangerous, because more people are likely to buy into the false teachings being propagated.

But here is an example you may have missed, in the very same thread (and shortly previous to) where the insult you acknowledged occurred:

You told OC: "OC, you should just admit that you were wrong, and that Sparko was right. You are completely wrong on even your own Mormon sources, so why should we be able to trust you on other sources? "

to which Sparko responded:

"OC's philosophy is to keep digging the hole deeper, in the hopes that he will eventually make his way back out in China somewhere."

whereupon YOU had a CHOICE as to how to respond. You chose:

"Yeah, I figure it will go exactly as you say. Just like it did with your flow chart earlier."

and Sparko continued the mockery and insults, with both of you building on each other's foundation of insults:

"he has a very limited cache of weaponry and tends to use the same tactics over and over. That's why I said we could replace him with an AI Bot and nobody would notice. Or maybe he already IS one..."

whereupon you AGAIN HAD A CHOICE as to how you would respond. You chose::

"Weaponry?!!? The only thing comparable is one of those cap guns that has long run out of ammunition. Not even any smoke from the barrel anymore."

OC had yet to give any argument that had been essentially more than "you aren't spiritual enough". So, where would you say that a response like that qualifies in comparison to any kind of weapon in existence. Jesus compared the Bible to "a double edged sword", at the time an extremely powerful weapon. The Gnostics have a similar weapon in their "cache", and it's basically "you aren't enlightened enough", and it is essentially worthless, don't you agree?

After you had joined CP in insulting me (CP said "I don't think he has a clue" and you replied " Well, we are talking about Jeff here") OC made one simple observation of what was OBVIOUS:

And I owned up to that one in my above post.

"Back to personal attacks again, I see."

And instead of owning up to it and maybe apologizing--or offering some excuse such as "I got caught up in the gang mentality like might happen to brats on a school bus when one of them starts taunting the bus monitor and joining in becomes easy and is encouraged" you chose to say:

"I was actually just kidding. I guess I should have put the sarcasm tag up there so that you wouldn't get so upset."

You had no evidence that OC was UPSET. You CHOSE to characterize his comment in that INSULTING way in order to make it seem like his comment was unreasonable and your preceding insult was somehow APPROPRIATE.

Given the way the discussion was going, and your own involvement, I didn't think that what I said was inappropriate, and OC was taking it as a personal attack, that usually denotes someone being upset, especially considering what was actually being said.

Final comment: You said "I will try to remember to use the "sarcasm tags"(I would have thought that the smiley would have been enough, but I guess I was wrong) when I say something that I am only kidding about....If I come across as being a jerk, and I didn't intend that, I want to know so I can apologize. I've seen when people are intentionally hurtful ,and I don't want to come across as a jerk.

A "shrug" animated gif or emoticon doesn't necessarily mean that you're joking. And isn't it possible to say something sarcastically, and ALSO to mean it? In other words, insulting someone and then saying "For the sarcastically challenged, this was said sarcastically" doesn't make what you said okay, nor does it mean that you actually DON'T believe what you said about the person. It just means that you said it sarcastically.

Anything that I 100% believe and want to stand behind, will likely NOT have sarcasm tags. Also, taking oneself too seriously is going to lead to a LOT MORE "hot" discussions, and a LOT MORE people running off offended. Also, if we were to compare my sarcasm to the things you have said about me, then I wonder how well things would stack up, hmm? Like in that thread where you were bringing up the whole gay priest thing. I simply put up a smiley to show that I thought a post was funny, and then YOU joked about me being homosexual. Does ANYTHING I said compare with that?