Scott Lloyd Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Both are allowed under a literal read of Section 89. I have reference to authoritative Church doctrine, not somebody’s argumentative, private interpretation of scripture.
Teancum Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I have reference to authoritative Church doctrine, not somebody’s argumentative, private interpretation of scripture. I could care less about "authoritative" church doctrine. It is an ever moving target. and it constantly contradicts itself. I read the text and study the history. Just watch the laughable new changes in the handbook of instructions. What a three ring circus. So nice to be free from such nonsense.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 32 minutes ago, Teancum said: I could care less about "authoritative" church doctrine. It is an ever moving target. and it constantly contradicts itself. I read the text and study the history. Just watch the laughable new changes in the handbook of instructions. What a three ring circus. So nice to be free from such nonsense. Do you mean you couldn’t care less? As the great sage Weird Al Yankovic pointed out, “could care less” means you do care, even if only a little bit. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Fresh pears and apples, sliced. And grapes. Probably more I'm not thinking of now. Not all things have to be dipped into the hummus. I like swiping some bread, like pita or naan, in the hummus and then eating several things soon after that while the taste of hummus is still in my mouth. Very Middle Eastern, like your avatar. Sounds delicious.
Stargazer Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 10 hours ago, bluebell said: Going off of the definition of rude, I don’t think Jesus ever was actually rude, which generally means inconsiderate. Name-calling isn't being rude, or inconsiderate? I assume that in each case He was stating a plain fact, but in all these cases he was not cushioning his statements with euphemisms. Even to his own intimate follower, Peter, he said "Get thee behind me, Satan!" We normally associate such flat declarations calling out miscreants with direct speech, with rudeness. Here's what I understand: we don't associate negative attitudes with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He love us, all of us, even vile sinners. But when He admonishes us for our conduct, He does not pull punches. Not pulling punches in speech is commonly called rudeness. But is being rude in this way a sin? I'm saying that it isn't. 1
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 9 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Name-calling isn't being rude, or inconsiderate? I assume that in each case He was stating a plain fact, but in all these cases he was not cushioning his statements with euphemisms. Even to his own intimate follower, Peter, he said "Get thee behind me, Satan!" We normally associate such flat declarations calling out miscreants with direct speech, with rudeness. Here's what I understand: we don't associate negative attitudes with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He love us, all of us, even vile sinners. But when He admonishes us for our conduct, He does not pull punches. Not pulling punches in speech is commonly called rudeness. But is being rude in this way a sin? I'm saying that it isn't. I would say “It depends”
Stargazer Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I would say “It depends” So would I, actually. But the point I'm trying to make is that rudeness isn't sinful in and of itself. 1
Teancum Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you mean you couldn’t care less? As the great sage Weird Al Yankovic pointed out, “could care less” means you do care, even if only a little bit. Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous, both meaning "not concerned or interested at all." "Couldn't care less" is the older and more obvious phrase grammatically, but it has been confused for so long that both are now defined. Additionally, the example sentence "it's impossible that could care less" is the same as the intended meaning. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-couldnt-care-less
Kenngo1969 Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 34 minutes ago, Teancum said: Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous, both meaning "not concerned or interested at all." "Couldn't care less" is the older and more obvious phrase grammatically, but it has been confused for so long that both are now defined. Additionally, the example sentence "it's impossible that could care less" is the same as the intended meaning. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-couldnt-care-less I think, in this case, that Mr. Yankovic is more authoritative than Mr. Webster. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Not pulling punches in speech is commonly called rudeness. Or have we been recently conditioned to think that way because of political correctness? The absolute worst thing we can do today is to offend someone.
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Teancum said: Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous, both meaning "not concerned or interested at all." "Couldn't care less" is the older and more obvious phrase grammatically, but it has been confused for so long that both are now defined. Additionally, the example sentence "it's impossible that could care less" is the same as the intended meaning. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-couldnt-care-less Irregardless of that firstly I would say that for all intensive purposes we misunderestimate how much English changes. Vice-a versa we have a whole nother group dedicated to retaining goodly use of traditional English and they feel very disrespected. Edited February 28, 2020 by The Nehor 2
Ahab Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Irregardless of that firstly I would say that for all intensive purposes we misunderestimate how much English changes. Yeah I keep trying to get that point across. At this juncture we now have words with multiple definitions and the trick is to know which definition to use where and when. Quote Vice-a versa we have a whole nother group dedicated to retaining goodly use of traditional English. Tradition! I feel inspired to watch Fiddler on the Roof now. Doing things as we have been doing them. Assigning multiple definitions to words has been the trend for quite a while now, picking when and which definition to use whenever we want. I see no good reason we can't continue to have fun in this way. Edited February 28, 2020 by Ahab
Ahab Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: I would say “It depends” Which means sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. But in and of itself, it isn't. So now the question is, When is it, and when is it isn't? Opinions will vary, of course, so you might as well forget about everybody agreeing on this.
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yeah I keep trying to get that point across. At this juncture we now have words with multiple definitions and the trick is to know which definition to us where and when. Tradition! I feel inspired to watch Fiddler on the Roof now. Doing things as we have always done them. Assigning multiple definitions to words has been the trend for quite a while now, picking when and which definition to use whenever we want. I see no good reason we can't continue to have fun in this way.
Ahab Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Or have we been recently conditioned to think that way because of political correctness? The absolute worst thing we can do today is to offend someone. To offend is to go on the offensive. To go into attack mode, with words. We may not actually hurt someone or their feelings when we are in our attack/offense mode, but we're still trying to, I think. Maybe for a good reason, maybe not. And maybe others who feel they are being attacked are attacking back, in defense mode, because they didn't feel the initial attack was warranted. That they weren't doing anything wrong and then someone just came along and attacked them. Attacking people usually isn't the best way to help them, though. Sometimes there are simply some misunderstandings and communicating without attacking would be better than to provoke an attack, or cause them to go into their defense mode. War games are interesting in that they can teach a lot about how people should act when in either a defense or an attack mode. War is something we should understand. When to attack, when not to. When to be diplomatic. When to just sit down and talk as friends. Edited February 28, 2020 by Ahab
Ahab Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Really? Those were some good words there and I think you should take them more seriously.
caspianrex Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I think, in this case, that Mr. Yankovic is more authoritative than Mr. Webster. 1
Stargazer Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Or have we been recently conditioned to think that way because of political correctness? No, not really. There may now be a very oversensitive trip-wire with some snowflakes, but it has always been the case that plain speaking could cross boundaries that caused offense. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The absolute worst thing we can do today is to offend someone. Oh, absolutely.
Recommended Posts