Is this a Mormon board anymore?

[probablyHagoth7]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

...The dating of Daniel isn't controversial...

It actually is.

And your repeated claims that a late date is somehow a settled point are noted...

...but seem very much like whistling in the dark.

18 hours ago, Gray said:

But you are free to reject historians on a matter of history.

...I am a historian. 

 

18 hours ago, Gray said:

You can probably just take 2500 year old texts at face value without any historical context....

I am a reasonably thoughtful/thorough person, and have studied the matter of Daniel in considerable depth.

That doesn't necessarily make me right and you wrong...but I would greatly appreciate it if you would drop the assertion that I put no thought into the historical context of that (or any other) text. Such a courtesy might advance the discussion a wee bit.

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

The purpose of Daniel is really to give hope for the imminent overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes and his "abomination of desolation"...

The purpose of Daniel is to attest repeatedly that God is judge and ruler.  Dan-iel = God is judge.

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[juliann]

How did Daniel sneak into a thread about a message board?

[probablyHagoth7]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

How did Daniel sneak into a thread about a message board?

Vandalism. Or art.

You choose.

(Either way, the writing was on the wall.)

[probablyHagoth7]

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

How did Daniel sneak into a thread about a message board?

Or:

 

[probablyHagoth7]

49 minutes ago, juliann said:

How did Daniel sneak into a thread about a message board?

Or:

1, The OP wondered whether this was still a Mormon board.  

2. Gray questioned something in Revelation.

3. The discussion pivoted to Revelation's OT counterpart, Daniel. ;0)

4. Daniel and Revelation are pretty central to the premise of a latter-day Restoration.  

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[why me]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Not just you but more positive comments from everyone, that would be a very nice change to see. Things that are virtuous and lovely and praise worthy, etc. 

Being positive abot the lds church is in short supply. Negativity is more the norm. It is amazing really. Mormon boards full of critics and not so many defenders. I suppose an active member does not want to read criticism on a somewhat constant basis. Most probably just want to live their faith in peace and comfort. And who can blame them?

It is like being on a Yankee board and yet, many negative comments about the Yanks from former Yankee fans who converted to the Mets and then, constant praise for the Mets. What Yankee fan could tolerate it?

[why me]

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Or:

1, The OP wondered whether this was still a Mormon board.  

2. Gray questioned something in Revelation.

3. The discussion pivoted to Revelation's OT counterpart, Daniel. ;0)

4. Daniel and Revelation are pretty central to the premise of a latter-day Restoration.  

And yet, still off topic.

[probablyHagoth7]

4 hours ago, why me said:

And yet, still off topic.

Are you sure? The OP expressed concern about incessant negativity chipping away at faith/resolve. The lion's share of the offender's response was a positive reinforcement of the latter. Is such a response unwelcome?

Just in case, I vote we banish the offender to some remote island to teach a much-needed lesson.

• Such as:
  • New Zealand 
• And/or:
  • Als
  • Vendsyssel 
  • Sjaelland
  • Orcas
  • South Pacific 
  • Caribbean
  • Patmos

(Off topic yet again?)

Perhaps on triple-dog purpose.

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[hagoth7]

3 hours ago, why me said:

And yet, still off topic.

I vote banishment.

[notHagoth7]

7 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I vote banishment.

I second the motion.

*Clearly* a troublemaker / boatrocker / habitual thread-derailer.

Edited March 29, 2017 by notHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

4 hours ago, why me said:

...I suppose an active member does not want to read criticism on a somewhat constant basis...

I can't speak for other people, but I don't necessarily want to read regular criticism.

That said, doing so doesn't bother me. When I see it, I want to both understand it...and, where possible, help mitigate/resolve it.

4 hours ago, why me said:

It is like being on a Yankee board and yet, many negative comments about the Yanks from former Yankee fans who converted to the Mets and then, constant praise for the Mets. What Yankee fan could tolerate it?

As a kid, I lived in the shadow of the Yankees and the Mets. Even attended a game or two. 

How about the fans bury the hatchet/conflict and simply merge teams under one pennant? Does one city really need two teams/stadiums?

Ditto with the Jets/Giants. Such duplication seems like an enormous waste of taxpayer resources.

As to your purpose for the analogy, I think discussion can/should focus on building bridges and common ground, instead of agitating further division. (Not claiming to be good at doing that...yet.)

Thoughts?

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Clark,

Please clarify your intended meaning when you said "the fairly late text of Daniel."

I think it was composed around the 2cd century. (Which says nothing about whether the elements in it are inspired or whether there was a historic Daniel in Babylon or some other location) But I'll drop it for this thread. If someone wants to create a new thread I'm fine with that.