Something that saddens me about many active members of the Chuch

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Solon

It's an idiom. It means "to each his/her own."

Better still. ALthough it does sound a little harsher than that in French, eh?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by creekster

For this group, it might be better phrased (and more politely): "A chacun son petit nombrit."

What's a nombrit? I don't know that word.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm not ridiculing anyone. Maybe I should have said "completely inconceivable." People sense, or think they sense god in their own ways. But, as I see it, we quantify, classify, describe, and characterize god according to our ethics and values, not according to god's.

But, again, I don't want to antagonize. Religion should be personal. As a wise frenchie once told me, A chacun sa merde.

Trying to place the morals of man onto God is exactly what SeattleUte is doing.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are attributing the suffering of man to God's incomprehensible plans for His children, assuming that when God says "For he so loved [us] that he gave his only begotten son" means that he truly does love us.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Trying to place the morals of man onto God is exactly what SeattleUte is doing.

I don't claim to speak for Seattle, although I think I generally agree with him on this issue.

when God says "For he so loved [us] that he gave his only begotten son" means that he truly does love us.

"god" didn't say this.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

"god" didn't say this.

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Divine_investiture

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Divine_investiture

Sounds like more rationalization to me.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

Sounds like more rationalization to me.

Well, duh, you already have said as much about religion in general.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't claim to speak for Seattle, although I think I generally agree with him on this issue.



"god" didn't say this.

So you do believe that man SHOULD constrain God with his own ethics, and hence your entire argument is basically shot all to hell.

You can't have it both ways - either God is comprehend-able by man or he is not. If you agree with SU that an 'intervening God' would not allow the suffering in Bosnia to happen, you are constraining Him with your own ethics, and therefore you MUST believe that God is conceivable by man.


And if God is conceivable by man, you must admit that man can come to know Him on a personal level.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, duh, you already have said as much about religion in general.

When you just paste a link into the message, with no explanatory context, I don't know what you're trying to say. If you had written, "this is how some LDS have explained it" or comparable, I wouldn't respond and then you wouldn't have to pull the "well duh" statement out of your third grade notebook.

Next, you're going to call me a dum-dum or a stupid-toe.

I have no interest in trying to convince / dissuade people about god or religion. I am trying to state my opinions and the reasons I hold those opinions.

I'm trying to do my part to keep the Religion Section a positive place, where the Cougarguard intelligentsia can pat themselves on the back and congratulate one another for being "liberal faithfuls."

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Solon

Next, you're going to call me a dum-dum or a stupid-toe.

I'm trying to do my part to keep the Religion Section a positive place, where the Cougarguard intelligentsia can pat themselves on the back and congratulate one another for being "liberal faithfuls."

LOL.

I've never heard the phrase "stupid-toe" before. Stupid-head, sure, but not the toe...



It's an interesting state of affairs here, isn't it? The attempt to align liberalism with faithful LDS...