Tithes going to fund BYU

[Pahoran]

well, I guess when you are not getting the issue or decide to run away then we can't really form a discussion, right?

Since your issue is vapour and smoke, and you utterly refuse to provide anything at all to discuss, you know perfectly well that I'm not "running away" at all. I'm walking away in frustration and disgust.

You go on and on and on and on and on and on and on ad nauseam, but there's no hook to hang a discussion upon, and you sputter indignantly at every attempt to form one.

You can agree or disagree with anything you want, Pahoran, but the point of discussion is no just to say "I disagree" but to give reasons and analyzing them well.

Various participants have tried, unsuccessfully, to get something substantive to discuss, but you've refused to give them anything. You just have this vague sentimental notion that it would be nice to spend money on cataract operations for children in Africa instead of "excessively" beautifying temples, but until you develop your own thinking to the point of actually spelling out how much beautification is acceptable and where it becomes "excessive," there remains nothing at all to discuss.

you can continue to sustain them but that does not mean you have agree with ALL the decisions they make.

You have not specified even one decision that you disagree with; nor have you offered any alternative to that decision.

All you have done is express vague disapproval in general terms. So there remains nothing to discuss.

On that basis, you may now declare victory. Like the knight at the bridge, you may have the last word.

Regards,

Pahoran

[elguanteloko]

Face it. Nobody here is capable of understanding eiguanteloko's position or grasping his arguments.

really? so you did not understand my last response to you?

And God isn't necessarily the wisest, most intelligent, and morally best being in the Universe.

He may very well be... but we have no reason to believe He is.

You can go on sustaining Him, of course, but you don't have to agree with all of His decisions.

you see? you are getting it now.

[elguanteloko]

Since your issue is vapour and smoke, and you utterly refuse to provide anything at all to discuss, you know perfectly well that I'm not "running away" at all. I'm walking away in frustration and disgust.

You go on and on and on and on and on and on and on ad nauseam, but there's no hook to hang a discussion upon, and you sputter indignantly at every attempt to form one.

I seriously do apologize for not being able to be clearer. seriously, don't feel frustrated. I am really trying to do my best here.. if I can't make myself clearer it is my fault.

Various participants have tried, unsuccessfully, to get something substantive to discuss, but you've refused to give them anything. You just have this vague sentimental notion that it would be nice to spend money on cataract operations for children in Africa instead of "excessively" beautifying temples, but until you develop your own thinking to the point of actually spelling out how much beautification is acceptable and where it becomes "excessive," there remains nothing at all to discuss.

same as above.

You have not specified even one decision that you disagree with; nor have you offered any alternative to that decision.

check my responses to Daniel Peterson.

All you have done is express vague disapproval in general terms. So there remains nothing to discuss.

same as above.

On that basis, you may now declare victory. Like the knight at the bridge, you may have the last word.

victory? when I can't even be clearer even if I try? I loose here.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps, eiguant-El, you can launch a thread to explain why you worship a god whom you suspect to be morally inferior to yourself.

Dense and slow though I am, I would find that very interesting.

Thanks!

[Calm]

Perhaps, eiguant-El, you can launch a thread to explain why you worship a god whom you suspect to be morally inferior to yourself.

Dense and slow though I am, I would find that very interesting.

Thanks!

In another thread,he defined himself as an Agnostic LDS....one wonders why he worships at all if so. see

[USU78]

Face it. Nobody here is capable of understanding eiguanteloko's position or grasping his arguments.

The learned constable is too cunning to be understood.

[Daniel Peterson]

In another thread,he defined himself as an Agnostic LDS....one wonders why he worships at all if so. see

Ah. I suspected as much.

His position now makes much more sense to me, and now seems merely one more instance of what it so strongly resembled from the first: an unbeliever quarreling with the way believers act because he rejects what motivates them.

And it now seems No Big Deal. Quite uninteresting.

Yawn.

[elguanteloko]

Perhaps, eiguant-El, you can launch a thread to explain why you worship a god whom you suspect to be morally inferior to yourself.

I worship God because I have faith that He is good (hope in things not see; that is, I don't see Him being just or good that much). I do not consider Him morally inferior to myself since I don't know His reasons to act.

About saying I am an Agnostic LDS, that means that I recognize I will not know in this life why He does certain things but I am still morally responsible to myself to do the best I can do as far as I can see even if that seems to contradict what God may say. I will follow God in as much as I can have faith and that I see I am not harming others unjustly by doing something or failing to do.

[Daniel Peterson]

Whatever.

[elguanteloko]

Whatever.

I was responding to this statement of yours: "His position now makes much more sense to me, and now seems merely one more instance of what it so strongly resembled from the first: an unbeliever quarreling with the way believers act because he rejects what motivates them."

you obviously did not understand my position. I guess a 'whatever' is a very appropriate answer for you now.

[Daniel Peterson]

I was responding to this statement of yours: "His position now makes much more sense to me, and now seems merely one more instance of what it so strongly resembled from the first: an unbeliever quarreling with the way believers act because he rejects what motivates them."

you obviously did not understand my position. I guess a 'whatever' is a very appropriate answer for you now.

My widdle bwain cells is just all exhausted with this logic stuff and by twying to gwasp what you was saying. I'm afwaid that's the best I can do.