Stupidly deleted post on CB re Unga, mission anecdote

[oxcoug]

SU, there are some very sound reasons for sexual morality to be a focal point in LDS theology - as it is in varying degrees in most theologies - but I won't go into those now...

I think you're misreading the tone of the mission anecdote. The thing didn't rise (or sink) to the level of losing respect for him - there was no person to respect or disrespect just a name that became something funny to us. We disrespected him in a way by making light of something that was obviously very serious in his life. But it wasn't that we thought seriously enough about it for us to 'lose respect' for him - quite the opposite.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Sexaul morality has become the LDS Church's singular obsession....

For achievement in the field of singular obsession, you are Babe Ruth.

[SeattleUte]

SU, there are some very sound reasons for sexual morality to be a focal point in LDS theology - as it is in varying degrees in most theologies - but I won't go into those now...

I think you're misreading the tone of the mission anecdote. The thing didn't rise (or sink) to the level of losing respect for him - there was no person to respect or disrespect just a name that became something funny to us. We disrespected him in a way by making light of something that was obviously very serious in his life. But it wasn't that we thought seriously enough about it for us to 'lose respect' for him - quite the opposite.

Unga would not be out of school at Notre Dame. I think it is the focal point.

I went on a mission. We had a couple of guys sent home. I know what we all thought of them. It's like that scene in The Call of the Wild where all the dogs swarm on the dog with the broken leg and tear him to shreds.

Jsut look at what happened to UNga, to your post on Cougarboard.

[SeattleUte]

For achievement in the field of singular obsession, you are Babe Ruth.

You can't shame me because I care about people. I'm proud to have that be my obsession.

[oxcoug]

Unga would not be out of school at Notre Dame. I think it is the focal point.

I went on a mission. We had a couple of guys sent home. I know what we all thought of them. It's like that scene in The Call of the Wild where all the dogs swarm on the dog with the broken leg and tear him to shreds.

Jsut look at what happened to UNga, to your post on Cougarboard.

I'm unclear on what exactly you think that any of this proves - that the HC is outdated and clumsily enforced? Absolutely. That Cougarboard is ruled by whining Pharisees? Granted. That many Mormons are self-righteous about sex? Definitely?

That any of this says anything meaningful about the validity of core LDS beliefs on sexual morality? Not so much. That any of this saves Richard Dawkins from being the raving fundamentalist loon that he is? Obviously not.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'm unclear on what exactly you think that any of this proves - that the HC is outdated and clumsily enforced? Absolutely. That Cougarboard is ruled by whining Pharisees? Granted. That many Mormons are self-righteous about sex? Definitely?

That any of this says anything meaningful about the validity of core LDS beliefs on sexual morality? Not so much. That any of this saves Richard Dawkins from being the raving fundamentalist loon that he is? Obviously not.

Oh man, now you've done it.

<oxcoug CUF futures just took an impressive upward spike>

[SeattleUte]

Oh man, now you've done it.

<oxcoug CUF futures just took an impressive upward spike>

I've criticized Dawkins here more than anyone. Go ahead. Use your speed of light searching skills to find my posts crticital of Richard Dawkins. As for my sig, I guess you guys don't get irony. Why should I be surprised?

[John McClain]

I'm unclear on what exactly you think that any of this proves - that the HC is outdated and clumsily enforced? Absolutely. That Cougarboard is ruled by whining Pharisees? Granted. That many Mormons are self-righteous about sex? Definitely?

That any of this says anything meaningful about the validity of core LDS beliefs on sexual morality? Not so much. That any of this saves Richard Dawkins from being the raving fundamentalist loon that he is? Obviously not.

You go guy!

[oxcoug]

Oh man, now you've done it.

<oxcoug CUF futures just took an impressive upward spike>

I'm in.

The best take on Dawkins comes from Terry Eagelton, the grand intellect of British literary Marxism and himself a borderline atheist. But he shreds Dawkins pretensions on matters religious into tiny pieces and then pisses all over them.

From the London Review of Books. Here's the opening segment.

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be."

[SeattleUte]

You go guy!

Quisling alma mater hater.

[CardiacCoug]

That any of this says anything meaningful about the validity of core LDS beliefs on sexual morality? Not so much.

Do religious leaders in other churches systematically cross-examine their youth about masturbation, petting, etc?

Do other religions prevent engaged couples who are having sex from getting married in their temples?

Do any other religious universities expel kids from school for having sex?

I don't know very much about other conservative US religions, maybe they do. But it seems to me like SU has a point here. Maybe it's our polygamous past that made us so puritanical regarding sex -- we're almost like fundamentalist Muslims.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've criticized Dawkins here more than anyone. Go ahead. Use your speed of light searching skills to find my posts crticital of Richard Dawkins. As for my sig, I guess you guys don't get irony. Why should I be surprised?

Still chafing about the "round robin" rejection? Though honestly, even I was surprised by the speed and ease of finding rebuttal evidence. Despite your invitation, I shall retire for the evening.

[SoonerCoug]

Do religious leaders in other churches systematically cross-examine their youth about masturbation, petting, etc?

Do other religions prevent engaged couples who are having sex from getting married in their temples?

Do any other religious universities expel kids from school for having sex?

I don't know very much about other conservative US religions, maybe they do. But it seems to me like SU has a point here. Maybe it's our polygamous past that made us so puritanical regarding sex -- we're almost like fundamentalist Muslims.

I think ORU does some of those things, but definitely not all of them. I like Oklahoma Christian University (a Church of Christ school). The students are very similar to BYU students, and it's my understanding that students aren't even allowed to hold hands on their campus. But even that religion doesn't do the interrogation thing that Mormon bishops do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm in.

The best take on Dawkins comes from Terry Eagelton, the grand intellect of British literary Marxism and himself a borderline atheist. But he shreds Dawkins pretensions on matters religious into tiny pieces and then pisses all over them.

From the London Review of Books. Here's the opening segment.

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be."

Hmmm.... That sounds awfully familiar.

[oxcoug]

I've criticized Dawkins here more than anyone. Go ahead. Use your speed of light searching skills to find my posts crticital of Richard Dawkins. As for my sig, I guess you guys don't get irony. Why should I be surprised?

That's fine SU. No need for us to draw blades over Dawkins.... yet.