Plaudits for Pahoran

[why me]

Extremist wing? I have to disagree. Within Christianty there is no room for their behavior.

I said what I said to create a difference between them and the rest of the catholic church. And I agree there is no room for their behavior. And we must remember that other faiths besides mormonism are also mocked or bashed on the site. I told the then moderator that catholics need to be careful about calling the koran false or mohammed a false prophet. It is not good and such posts should not be allowed. But...hopefully the new moderator is clamping down.

I just saw this from one CAFer on one thread just now on CAF. He wrote:

Mormons are among the finest people I know. I am sure even some of the very rude ones we have seen here are really good people off the computer. They have good valuies, good family values, and are hard workers.

The issue is not the people. The issue is the god they worship and the prophet they follow.

Gosh, mormons should feel good about this.

I do not want to imagine a world when it will become perfectly natural for people to say:

Jews are among the finest people I know. The issue is not the people. The issue is the god they worship.

Muslims are among the finest people I know. The issue is not the people. The issue is the god they worship and the prophet they follow.

It would be just terrible. And not very loving.

[why me]

Or this CAFer who when referring to C.S. Lewis wrote:

Certainly he didn't believe in the false god of mormonism.

Amazing...what this site allows as it represents catholicism.

This is the site that pahoran attempted to post on. Not a very loving site or christian.

[zerinus]

I don't actually care about the fairness aspect of it. I expect the moderation there to favour the home team, although I'm sure they could be a little less blatant about it. Mind you, if my theory is correct, there may be an explanation for that.

I don't think that CAF has a policy of "favoring the home team". If a moderator has blatantly acted in this way it would be against forum policy, and should be reported.

I just tried to go on there again. I can read stuff, but as soon as I try to reply, or look at my profile to read my PM's or anything else at all, I get a message that says:

The procedure for appealing against a moderator decision is as follows:

You will find it in the signature line in any of Rachel Malloy's posts in one of the sticky threads at the top of the board:

Unless they are using the Julian calendar or something, they don't seem to be following their own directions.

That is something that you should mention in your appeal.

Somehow I don't think that place is worth the effort. I originally thought it wasn't as bad as CARM, but I may have been mistaken there.

I have been there for years, and have had my brushes with the mods, but I think that in general they have been fair, and can't say that I have complaints about the place. That is not to say some mods may have broken the rules themselves, and should be reported.

[zerinus]

I quoted Moroni 10:4 to show that you can ask God a question directly and he can tell you directly the truth without someone else testifying.

Of course James 1:5 says the same thing; were it not so, the church could not have been restored. No one but God testified to Joseph in the first vision.

You do not need anyone as an intermediary to hear the spirit.

You missed the point with that one. How can they know of Moroni 10:4 and James 1:5 if someone does not tell them or bear testimony of it to them?

Romans 10

:

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

[zerinus]

I think it is at least as bad as CARM.

I don't agree. There is no comparison between CAF and CARM.

[zerinus]

I said what I said to create a difference between them and the rest of the catholic church. And I agree there is no room for their behavior. And we must remember that other faiths besides mormonism are also mocked or bashed on the site. I told the then moderator that catholics need to be careful about calling the koran false or mohammed a false prophet. It is not good and such posts should not be allowed. But...hopefully the new moderator is clamping down.

I just saw this from one CAFer on one thread just now on CAF. He wrote:

Mormons are among the finest people I know. I am sure even some of the very rude ones we have seen here are really good people off the computer. They have good valuies, good family values, and are hard workers.

The issue is not the people. The issue is the god they worship and the prophet they follow.

Gosh, mormons should feel good about this.

I do not want to imagine a world when it will become perfectly natural for people to say:

Jews are among the finest people I know. The issue is not the people. The issue is the god they worship.

Muslims are among the finest people I know. The issue is not the people. The issue is the god they worship and the prophet they follow.

It would be just terrible. And not very loving.

Or this CAFer who when referring to C.S. Lewis wrote:

Certainly he didn't believe in the false god of mormonism.

Amazing...what this site allows as it represents catholicism.

This is the site that pahoran attempted to post on. Not a very loving site or christian.

There is an answer to everything. CAF may tolerate them saying that, but it doesn't prevent you from giving them the answer they deserve either. In the past I have been as mean to them as they have been to me, or to the Mormons, and I have not been stopped. Now I think ignoring them is the best policy. Actually, if you report them to the mods they will take action, but I don't like winging to the mods. I prefer to either answer them directly, or ignore them.

[mfbukowski]

You missed the point with that one. How can they know of Moroni 10:4 and James 1:5 if someone does not tell them or bear testimony of it to them?

Romans 10

:

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

[mfbukowski]

I don't agree. There is no comparison between CAF and CARM.

This makes no sense.

Of course they can be compared. You may disagree with the comparison but they CAN be compared. Your opinion is not the end of truth for every person who has visited both boards.

[zerinus]

Who bore testimony of James to Joseph?

James did (a long time ago), and the Holy Ghost bore testimony to Joseph Smith that what James said was true.

Why did I seek out the church before I knew anything about the Book of Mormon? Because the spirit told me this was where to find the truth.

How did you hear about the Church in the first place?

I know you mean well, but you are limiting the spirits ability to testify to people and I don't think that is wise.

I am doing no such thing. The Spirit can testify without the involvement of a human agent; but that is how it usually operates. I was merely responding to your earlier posts, which appear to contain contradictions.

This makes no sense.

Of course they can be compared. You may disagree with the comparison but they CAN be compared. Your opinion is not the end of truth for every person who has visited both boards.

Now you are being pedantic or obtuse, I am not sure which. "There is no comparison between . . ." is an English idiom meaning that two things are too wide apart to be compared in the way it has been done. It does not mean that the two cannot literally be compared.

[why me]

There is an answer to everything. CAF may tolerate them saying that, but it doesn't prevent you from giving them the answer they deserve either. In the past I have been as mean to them as they have been to me, or to the Mormons, and I have not been stopped. Now I think ignoring them is the best policy. Actually, if you report them to the mods they will take action, but I don't like winging to the mods. I prefer to either answer them directly, or ignore them.

Hello Z.

Maybe you missed it but I was banned from CAF for being uncharible to the mormonhaters and the catholic church. Now Z, you know my posts on CAF. Just where have I been uncharitable? I was usually very polite and to the point. I am afraid that you are missing something on CAF. I usually replied to the moderator about the comments of the mormonhaters when the mod gave me a five point penalty toward my suspension. I was ignored.

So what is the answer to that?

[zerinus]

Hello Z.

Maybe you missed it but I was banned from CAF for being uncharible to the mormonhaters and the catholic church. Now Z, you know my posts on CAF. Just where have I been uncharitable? I was usually very polite and to the point. I am afraid that you are missing something on CAF. I usually replied to the moderator about the comments of the mormonhaters when the mod gave me a five point penalty toward my suspension. I was ignored.

So what is the answer to that?

They may have had other reasons for wanting to ban you, and used that as an excuse; but if you have been there long enough you will know that I have been a lot meaner to them than you have been, and I am still there.

It may have had something to do with your posting style; or because you were saying you were Catholic, but spending all of your time speaking in favor of Mormonism. Or it may be because you were spending too much of your time challenging the anti-Mormons, or complaining too much of "anti-Mormonism" on the boards. Antis are best ignored, and complaining about a board you are regularly posting on is not a wise option. I never complain about anti-Mormonism on any board. I either give the antis the reply they deserve, or ignore them altogether; but I don't complain about the board. If I find that the forum itself is objectionable, then I don't post there; but I don't think it is wise to regularly post on a board, and regularly complain about it at the same time. If you find the place objectionable, then you don't post.

I can think of a number of mistakes that you were making on that board that eventually might have led to your being banned, and they used "uncharitableness" as an excuse, because they didn't want to go into great length explaining why. That is my guess.

[mfbukowski]

How did you hear about the Church in the first place?

Through my studies of the epistemology of experience including spiritual experience; in other words, how we can know things are true empirically though experience. The philosophy of Pragmatism.

If we can only know things through experience and observation, spiritual experience must be valid too.

If you are saying that we can only know of God through culture, I don't think you are correct. I think that in spiritual experience there is a non-linguistic element which is "unspeakable".

I don't see how something unspeakable can be learned through language.

I was a humanist who believed that the creator was man. I just didn't know he was A Man.

[3DOP]

Through my studies of the epistemology of experience including spiritual experience; in other words, how we can know things are true empirically though experience. The philosophy of Pragmatism.

If we can only know things through experience and observation, spiritual experience must be valid too.

If you are saying that we can only know of God through culture, I don't think you are correct. I think that in spiritual experience there is a non-linguistic element which is "unspeakable".

I don't see how something unspeakable can be learned through language.

I was a humanist who believed that the creator was man. I just didn't know he was A Man.

Can anyone say "hellenism"? Anyway, maybe I should read you your Miranda rights: "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." Heh.

Bukowski, if the early Christians leaned very heavily on the philosophy of the "Former Day" to their theological downfall, maybe the Mormons should beware of leaning very heavily on the philosophy of the "Latter Day"?

I know, you will object because you think that your Scriptures beautifully reconcile with your philosophy. Your philosophy is helping, not leading, you would assert. I tend to agree with you, but I hope you can see how one could be suspicious based on what you say to Zerinus. Based on what you say above, could not someone 2,000 years hence conclude you are apostate because your philosophy is hopelessly entwined with your theology, just like the Nicenes? I am not asking for you to renounce your philosophy or your theology. But I am asking yopu to consider that perhaps the LDS claims of "hellenism" as a symptom of apostasy in the early church might be less easily proven than has been hitherto presumed, if not by you, but by many Mormons.

It seems difficult for those steeped in philsophy to not think, write, and speak in the same terminology. I think, while saying that the early church erred, you could see that it was not by an inordinate attachment to "their philosophy", but by an amazed correlation, as they perceived it, between their philosophy and the Christian revelation they had discovered.

Thanks for your consideration,

Rory

[mfbukowski]

Can anyone say "hellenism"? Anyway, maybe I should read you your Miranda rights: "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." Heh.

Bukowski, if the early Christians leaned very heavily on the philosophy of the "Former Day" to their theological downfall, maybe the Mormons should beware of leaning very heavily on the philosophy of the "Latter Day"?

I know, you will object because you think that your Scriptures beautifully reconcile with your philosophy. Your philosophy is helping, not leading, you would assert. I tend to agree with you, but I hope you can see how one could be suspicious based on what you say to Zerinus. Based on what you say above, could not someone 2,000 years hence conclude you are apostate because your philosophy is hopelessly entwined with your theology, just like the Nicenes? I am not asking for you to renounce your philosophy or your theology. But I am asking yopu to consider that perhaps the LDS claims of "hellenism" as a symptom of apostasy in the early church might be less easily proven than has been hitherto presumed, if not by you, but by many Mormons.

It seems difficult for those steeped in philsophy to not think, write, and speak in the same terminology. I think, while saying that the early church erred, you could see that it was not by an inordinate attachment to "their philosophy", but by an amazed correlation, as they perceived it, between their philosophy and the Christian revelation they had discovered.

Thanks for your consideration,

Rory

Well thanks for YOUR consideration! I always enjoy your posts.

The deal is, it is impossible to avoid one's culture and philosophy. We live and breathe it and think it. What you wrote is philosophy, this whole forum is philosophy and every interpretation anyone makes of anything is philosophy.

The goal is to have it at least a consistent philosophy, which is not all that easy. There's a few more comments I made on that Philosophy thread on the pundits forum, now that they let me in there to keep the place from getting too high-falutin.

And frankly, the advantage of believing in an open canon and continuing revelation is that in 2000 years, they will look back and just think we were mistaken and quaint and altogether primitive.

[todd520]

FYI, The decorum on CAF has improved markedly with the new forum sheriff

Even our 'friend' Atticus was given a time-out.

I myself am really working on my charity, so I can stay active