"Religion" catagory needs to be split

[The Borg]

Reading some of the "religion" posts the past few weeks, I think there needs to be a split in the religion catagory.


Catagory #1) "Religion"
- dealing with normal topics of gospel related questions, discussions;

Catagory #2) "Philosophies of Men, Mingled with Scripture"
- dealing with contrived reasoning, in depth analysis over the multiple meaning of some word, current philosphies of learned human behavior.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by The Borg

Reading some of the "religion" posts the past few weeks, I think there needs to be a split in the religion catagory.


Catagory #1) "Religion"
- dealing with normal topics of gospel related questions, discussions;

Catagory #2) "Philosophies of Men, Mingled with Scripture"
- dealing with contrived reasoning, in depth analysis over the multiple meaning of some word, current philosphies of learned human behavior.

That is SO clever! Hopefully you will be available to help us sort out which is which.

[The Borg]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That is SO clever! Hopefully you will be available to help us sort out which is which.

No way...I'm not smart enough!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by The Borg

No way...I'm not smart enough!

Apparently you are.

[creekster]

Why the sarcastic responses? Borg is either sincere, in which case they are not justified, or he is trying to make a point, in which case they are non-responsive (although he may take it as proof that the point neededd to be made).

Moreover as a point, it is not entirely off-base to remind those of that are believers to tread carefully. What about that is deserving of these type of responses?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Moreover as a point, it is not entirely off-base to remind those of that are believers to tread carefully. What about that is deserving of these type of responses?

Guilty consciences.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

Moreover as a point, it is not entirely off-base to remind those of that are believers to tread carefully. What about that is deserving of these type of responses?

I think its pretty condescending in that (1) it is a rebuke (2) it presumes that the author's idea of where that line is is the correct one. I'll keep my own counsel on that, thanks.

I don't have the least patience for him or you suggesting to me what it is appropriate for me to discuss on an internet message board. Opt out of and don't participate in whatever you deem inappropriate, but if you look down your nose at me and suggest that I should too then anticipate a tart reply.

[The Borg]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Apparently you are.

...um...no. Hence my original post.

I find that there are some here that tread dangerously close to the spiritual edge with their intellectualism. There may be some on this board that may not be secure in their testimonies and may actually believe some of the bs put forth here and lose faith....all put forth under the guise of some intellectuals on here seeking for further truth, being impressed with their own knowledge, etc.

"The glory of God is intelligence"...but intelligence has to be combined with wisdom, or it more often than not, becomes a stumbling block to those very individuals (at least that has been my experience).

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by The Borg

...um...no. Hence my original post.

I find that there are some here that tread dangerously close to the spiritual edge with their intellectualism. There may be some on this board that may not be secure in their testimonies and may actually believe some of the bs put forth here and lose faith....all put forth under the guise of some intellectuals on here seeking for further truth, being impressed with their own knowledge, etc.

"The glory of God is intelligence"...but intelligence has to be combined with wisdom, or it more often than not, becomes a stumbling block to those very individuals (at least that has been my experience).

Thanks for your concern.

[The Borg]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think its pretty condescending in that (1) it is a rebuke (2) it presumes that the author's idea of where that line is is the correct one.

Not trying to be condescending at all. Just common sense. How could I presume to say what anyone can say or not say on a message board???

If you, or anyone else on this board has ever served a mission (I'm assuming most on here purport to be LDS)...then you know how people are all over the spectrum regarding their spirituality.

It is easy to throw things about, on a message board,... but you never know how it will affect people. If one finds themselves calling LDS authors or GA's derogatory names, saying they are full of crap, etc... is that constructive? Not saying you have to even be constructive...don't know what I"m trying to say at the moment...but, I would think that one would be more sensitive to the various levels of spirituality of people who are "out there".

I am half serious about a "philosophy" catagory.