Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Damien the Leper

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Damien the Leper

  1. On 12/20/2023 at 9:58 AM, MiserereNobis said:

    Absolutely. I think there will be something like "the spirit of Vatican II" with this. People won't actually read the document and instead go off of what progressives are saying about it and then take it farther than it actually was meant to go.

    Absolutely again. The very progressive and very traditional wings of the Church are both misinterpreting this.

    Nor I.

    I concur.

    Thanks for giving a good explanation to our LDS friends in your full post.

    I'm in complete agreement with you both. It's best not to make this into something it's not.

  2. My top 4 hymns for ousting:

    1) There is a Green Hill Far Away

    2) There is Sunshine in My Soul Today

    3) Put Your Shoulder to the Wheel

    4) A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief

    I just can't with these ones. #4 is worse when all verses are sung.


    My top 4 to keep:

    1) I Stand All Amazed

    2) High on the Mountain Top

    3) I Believe in Christ

    4) O My Father

  3. On 10/23/2023 at 11:30 AM, Nofear said:

    Teaching kids social mores and values--I've heard the term brain washing used before. Grooming. That's a new one for me. Evokes the echos of sexual predation and the like as it's often used in that context. +1 troll points for creative use of language. Thanks for the example/tip!

    That was never actually my intent. Who gets to determine the definition of grooming within social context? What are social mores and values? Who has determined those? Certainly not scripture...well, at least not for Earth in the 21st century. Who is brainwashing whom? Groomers, at least by the "right", has been used ignorantly as a pejorative for people who don't follow a white, Christian, nationalist and hyper "patriotic" manner of living and thinking. Nasty business that nonsense is. The hypocrisy inherent in such thinking is quite astounding. 

    Let me be absolutely clear. I detest homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, islamophobia, racism, misogyny, etc. At the same time, I'm not going to tell anyone that they cannot be any of those listed. Wanna be a racist? Knock yourself out. Whatever. But don't ever for a minute think it appropriate that anyone can tell me how to raise my kids (not including predatory actions, abuse, etc. I hate those, too). No religion or any other social institution gets to have that power of me and mine.

    What was that about trolling?

  4. 1 minute ago, Nofear said:

    I think there is some room for you to answer that question in a serious manner with a bit of research -- both from a pragmatic what-happens-in-practice and a theoretical perspective. The amount of actual data on the topic is quite substantive.

    I don't really have a problem with the data. I'm not even arguing that people shouldn't have kids. How about we let marriage and kids be a personal decision without grooming? 

  5. What future does marriage and kids offer other than repopulation, societal enslavement, debt, the possibility of forced military service at the expense of being someone else's cannon fodder, etc? Does the piece of paper outweigh the sanctity of mutual agreement and commitment between 2 people? Let God sort out eternity and let's allow people to not feel pressured into a 1950s "nuclear whatever". People are going to have kids no matter what. Pressuring young adults with unnecessary expectations about "stages of life" needs to stop. It is absolutely 100% okay to not want to get married or have kids. 

  6. 12 minutes ago, Calm said:

    If we could program robots with feelings, would it be harsh to program them to be happy with their situation?   (A very simplified view of the perseverance of saints)

    It seems like saints, those destined for paradise, would be created with the response of eventual joy to the situation in the end at least. 

    That would be ideal but I don't think it realistic. The problem with all of this is that it neglects our very real humanness. Part of being human is the ability to make choices. Programming or predestining someone in this sense is, IMO, highly unethical. It's like God is a puppet master and we are mere playthings for Him to use as He sees fit without consideration for how we feel or think. To make it worse, consequences be damned because those consequences aren't going to affect God in the slightest. If predestination is reality then God should not care what happens to His "elect" or "damned" along the way to their eternal destinations. 

  7. 21 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

    with a Pentecostal background that adopted 'Apostolic Oneness' doctrine (there is One God, who is in multiple places as he is omnipresent, Jesus is God the Father) but they at least have other more solid beliefs, conversion by the holy ghost (ideally falling on you and making you speak in tongues)

    Hey @Pyreaux. Are you familiar with anyone discussing Oneness and Patripassianism as being similar or the same? 

  8. 18 hours ago, Calm said:

    If one is a saint, born of God, it hardly seems harsh.  Isn’t it a version of once saved, always saved? (Sincere question)



    14 hours ago, manol said:

    I stood up on my chair and that still went over my head.  I'd like to understand the point you're making.

    Can you explain?  Pretend I'm really slow.  Or, don't pretend...

    The harshness I'm speaking of is that a person cannot choose to reject God, either. Due to double predestination, a person cannot make the choice to be saved or not. Nor can they make the choice to accept or reject God. How does one persevere if they are elected by God but never asked or chose to be part of the elect? Then we have to deal with the question of why would God predestine a person to paradise if the person does not believe in Him? This is an absurd rabbit hole of questions that have to be dealt with when dealing with TULIP. It really does become a headache.

  9. 8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

    I've been hearing it from Non-Denominational Christians, I'm sorry for conveying hodgepodge doctrine from a denomination that is intentionally nonspecific, though these particular folks were very Anti-Calvinism.

    That is odd and a somewhat deviation from their norm. Fascinating anomaly. I'll have to talk to some of my evangelical friends and see if they've recognized a trend that I'm obviously not familiar with.

  10. On 10/10/2023 at 3:15 PM, Pyreaux said:

    Protestant doctrine of "Eternal Security" or "Perseverance of the Saints" dictates it is impossible for a truly saved person to fall away (while those who fall were never actually saved to begin with). Jesus says, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28). A claim worthy of consideration because Jesus is making a promise in "eternal life".

    Early in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, a passage from the Gospel of John gets repeated. The passage reads: “This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent” (D&C 132:24; John 17:3). So, “life” gets changed to “lives”. The term "fulness of the priesthood", is in Doctrine and Covenants 124:28.

    Certain temple anointings makes statements of security, "A person may be anointed king and priest long before he receives his kingdom." (History of the Church (Vol. 5 p. 527) However, even being "sealed up to eternal lives" will do no good if one breaks their covenants (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 3:124.)

    Let's be a little more specific than just Protestantism. Let's say 5 Point Calvinists or Westminster Reformed. 

  11. On 10/8/2023 at 7:42 PM, bluebell said:

    That was brought up but I don't remember which thread.  It was discussed how Pres. Nelson seemed to be using scriptural language when using the word "offend" since that is how it is often described in the scriptures when speaking of sinning.

    Someone (I don't remember who it was) then looked up the definition of the word "offend" in a 1800s dictionary (because one of the verses we were talking about was in section 59 in the Doctrine in Covenants).  We learned that the definition has changed somewhat from that era.  Where it used to most commonly mean "displeased" it's morphed into signifying annoyance or resentment at a perceived slight today.

    In the same conversation, someone else brought up how scripturally, offend was probably most often used in the scriptures because sinners were thought of as offenders in the legal "justice being harmed" sense, because when we sin we break spiritual laws the same way offenders are those who have broken laws in our justice system.


    Great response. 

    In Hebrew, offend means to "make angry" or to "strike against" and as you said "displeasure". Does to "strike against" or "offend" insult God? I'm honestly curious. I'm not trying to speak on His behalf. I'm so far out of my element here. When God is offended...is that the same as humans being offended?

  12. Not sure if this was brought up. If God gets offended, then maybe he should read Mr. Bednar's article on not being offended. If God is offended, then that is His choice, and He has given up power to His "offender". Perhaps at worst, Mr. Nelson is ignorantly and unjustifiably projecting an emotional falsehood onto God. 

  13. On 9/29/2023 at 12:27 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

    Yay!   I woke up this morning wondering if anything interesting would happen.   And shortly after noon I got called a theonomy-wanting propaganda-espousing troglodyte!   I haven't made an entry in my insult file in almost a decade.   Thanks Mr Leper!

    I instantly knew it was true.  No true troglodyte could possibly know what a theonomy was without looking it up, which I had to do.   But once I did, I was no longer a troglodyte, because I knew a big word.   

    But the theonomy thing sounds interesting.  Have the mormons heard about that I wonder?

    I don't remember speaking to you in particular on this matter. Rather narcissistic of you, Mr. LoudMouth.

  14. It would seem that the propaganda espoused by the 2025 Project (authored by the glorious Heritage Foundation and its tribe of troglodytes and seemingly agreeable others) is a great place to start with talks of marginalization. The idea that they seem to want to put into existence a minorly, at best, theonomy is concerning. 

    Also, there is the ever-present propaganda that anything that somehow makes LGBTQ+ equal will somehow bring about the downfall of civilization. Time to grow up and put our adult pants on.

  • Create New...