On 6-7-2009 1:51, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The reason Prop 8 passed is because the wackos staged it as an 
>> "religious" issue,
> 
> It *is* a religious issue. There's no secular reason to care about the 
> gender of who gets married. It even helps the economy, so I've read.
> 
Tangentially, I think this one game up in QI recently: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:34:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 6 Jul 2009 00:12:41 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:55:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Jul 2009 23:01:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to
>>>>protect us from the stupidity of others, no?
>>> 
>>> And our own sometimes. But who is supposed to protect us from the
>>> stupidity of our governments?
>>
>>We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who
>>"wow" us.
>>
>>
> Doesn't seem to work. If only God could do something ;)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:57:23 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church
>> itself is credited for donating just over $55,000.  That's in the
>> Church's name.
> 
> Like I said, I was active for more than 25 years, and that's the first
> time I heard of them taking a stance on a specific piece of
> legistlation.

Here's a second:  They took a position (and were involved in) the 
drafting of the new legislation concerning "private clubs" here in Utah.

The church is pretty active in local politics and lawmaking.  I've been 
here in Utah for about 15 years now and the influence is very apparent.  
Maybe it's not so obvious from the inside looking out, but from the 
outside looking in, it's really obvious.

>> Fact of the matter is that for out-of-state contributions in support of
>> Prop 8, Utah ranked 1st with more than 50% of out-of-state
>> contributions.
> 
> That doesn't surprise me.  A large portion of the population of Utah is
> comprised of active LDS members, and the LDS Church (as opposed to, for
> instance, Catholicism) has always inspired more activity than other
> churches (for instance, the practice of going to Church on Easter and
> Christmas, but avoiding it the rest of the year, is rather uncommon
> amongst Mormons, despite being near-epidemic amongst Catholics).

The surprising thing is that in the area here in Salt Lake City, the 
population is a lot more diverse than in Utah County or rural parts of 
Utah.  Salt Lake City is actually supposed to be one of the most "gay 
friendly" places to live, so I've heard.

The thing that the Church has done very well is to make church a 
community thing.  At work I often hear my coworkers talking about the 
things they did with their ward over the weekend.  There is definitely a 
strong sense of community - if you're a member.  Non-members are not ill-
treated of course, but there is nevertheless a sense of exclusion.

>> Remember that this is a church that has repressed women since its
>> inception and minorities until relatively recently.
> 
> ?  You mean the Church whose members were the first to extend the right
> to vote to women?  (Utah gave suffrage several decades before the rest
> of the nation).

Let's ask the women in the church who are in leadership roles what they 
think, shall we?

Oh, wait, there aren't any.  It's asserted that leadership in the church 
is for males only.

>> It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is
>> polygamistic (still practiced by some sects,
> 
> Still practiced by excommunicated members.  There are no "sects" of the
> LDS Church practicing polygamy... whenever anyone is discovered
> practicing it, they are excommunicated immediately.

I stand corrected, but that also ignores the history of the Church and 
what was "traditional" from the church's point of view.  How many wives 
did Joseph Smith have again?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:20:56 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Cola drinks contain caffeine, a drug.  Caffeine is not wholesome nor
>> prudent for the use of our bodies.  Therefore, as the Bishop wrote, "It
>> is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that
>> contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used." 
>> (Q&A, New Era, Oct. 1975.)
> 
> He can write whatever he wants.  You can drink a can of cola at every
> meal without it being considered a sin.
> 
> Individual people have considered it a sin, but that's irrelevent.  As I
> said before, the LDS church tries to limit how specific it is about
> people's behavior.

Maybe not a sin, but it seems to be a prohibition nonetheless.  Maybe 
"Utah Mormons" are different in that regard, though (I have heard that 
from various people, including those members of the church both inside 
and outside of Utah).

>> Does this apply today?  You bet.  Just go to The Roof (I have) and try
>> ordering a caffeinated beverage.  (The Roof is a Church-owned
>> restaurant in the Joseph Smith building here in Salt Lake City)
> 
> Well, that's their choice.  They don't have to serve anything they don't
> want to, and many members of the Church believe that Caffeine is a
> harmful substance that shouldn't be imbibed.

Sure, and they can make that choice.  I'm not saying that they can't or 
even that they shouldn't.  But it seems that that particular choice isn't 
one the owners of the restaurant (ie, the Church) made because it isn't 
proscribed, but rather because the leadership in the Church have 
interpreted the teachings to mean that this is a bad thing, and so are 
trying to set an example for the membership.

"Here's what we do, but you do what you like" isn't really giving people 
a choice.  I wonder if one's temple recommend would be rescinded (I don't 
know a lot about this aspect of the church) if one said "yes, I drink 
Mountain Dew regularly".

>> On the issue of blacks, I agree - though it's strangely odd that the
>> civil rights movement coincided with the church's "enlightenment" on
>> people of colour being allowed into the priesthood. O_o
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily call it "the church's 'enlightenment,'" as the
> Church's position was always that people of color would one day be able
> to receive Priesthood.  There was some significant debate about when it
> would be, of course, and noone knew for certain.

See, there's the problem.  "Blacks are equal, but only at some date in 
the future".  That doesn't work for me any more than "All men are created 
equal" does in the historical context of "men" being "white males who own 
property".

> According to the leaders of the Church, 1979 (oslt... I forget the exact
> date) was when God told them that it was time.  It came as quite a shock
> to some of them, too; one in particular had been quite vocal about his
> opinion that it wouldn't happen until after Armageddon.

1978/79 is what I've read as well.

>> And no, the LDS church never said "gay people are evil and should be
>> repressed" - but they do say that homosexual or lesbian behaviour is a
>> sexual sin violating God's "law of chastity".  As a result, many people
>> in leadership roles in the church (maybe not in the First Presidency or
>> the Quorum of the 12, I don't follow it that closely) have tried to
>> "cure" those who are gay.
> 
> I remember one quoting some research where counselors reported a success
> rate of "curing" homosexuals that was approximately in line with the
> success rates for depression.  I don't think the research went anywhere,
> though (either noone wanted to try replicating it, or noone replicated
> it successfully), so it's not a commonly held position amongst mental
> health professionals.

No, it's not.  Recent research suggests that (a) it's more natural than 
some people want to believe, and (b) that it's genetic and not a learned 
trait.

So much for accepting people for who they are, eh? ;-)

>>> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't
>>> the majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts
>>> saying stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
>> 
>> Got an example of that?  I've not found one myself...
> 
> Not specifically, though I've seen it happen for other things.
> 
> Generally, you can say whatever you want about your own opinion, but as
> soon as you start teaching a class or speaking from the pulpit, the
> Church gets quite sensitive about doctrinal claims.

Well, certainly they would if what you were teaching or speaking about 
from the pulpit conflicted with what has already been the established 
order of things.  That's only natural.  But that also doesn't make it 
right.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:35:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 6 Jul 2009 00:13:57 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:58:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Out of interest and to my relief ;)
>>> 
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8132122.stm
>>
>>Interesting, though it didn't do anything for my dad (though arguably he
>>drank decaf....)
>>
>>
> Since it is the caffine that does the protecting ... :)

Yeah, there is that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:50:41 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That it's not direct direction doesn't mean they're not saying "do what
>> we say" - "this is what is good", and then "do what you think is right"
>> is pushing a particular social agenda.
> 
> True, but in most (not all) cases there's enough room for interpretation
> that members can (and do) take different sides in debates.

At least up to the point where someone stands in front of a congregation 
and says "here's my interpretation" if that interpretation differs from 
the "official" interpretation from the Church leadership.

I have friends who are members who clearly think that "separate but 
equal" is a bad idea with regards to gay marriage.  They can have a 
philosophical debate about that all they want, but if they try to 
convince others in the Church that they are misguided, then the 
leadership "comes down hard on them".  How many BYU professors (for 
example) have been dismissed for being seen to be challenging the 
Church's authority?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   So you *did* understand that I was talking exclusively about that one
> single verse, yet you regardless went and accused me of trying to explain
> *all* the verses related to the subject with the same explanation, even
> though I did no such thing.

I phrased it poorly. I was asking why you answered only one question out of 
the many. It's a normal rhetorical device to ask if, when a person asks 
about 5 items, and the answer is about 1, whether that same answer is 
supposed to apply to the other four.

>   I did not answer your question because I have already written in length
> about it and I didn't want to write it again. 

OK.

>> Plus, you don't seem to be reading what *I* am saying well. I didn't ask if 
>> the verse said God told people to dash out the brains of infants against 
>> rocks.
> 
>   Does that mean I cannot comment on that particular verse, as a side note?
> I really think the comment was appropriate and valid in this context.

I do too. But I expected your answer to actually be addressing the question 
I asked, I suppose.

>> It still seems to me that my earlier list of four possibilities hasn't been 
>> addressed. Either God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
>> unspeakably horrible things yet in reality are actually good for reasons we 
>> can't comprehend
> 
>   You can't comprehend, or you are not willing to?

I'm trying to paraphrase your words. "Can't comprehend" in the same way the 
child can't comprehend why the father is disallowing ice cream. It's the old 
"it's all for the best in the end" argument that I'm talking about.

Given you came up with the child-wanting-ice-cream example, I figured that 
might be a good argument to address.

>   The nazi regime and World War 2 was ended by a full-fledged attack on
> Germany. Lots of civilians and innocent people died on that attack, and
> one could argue that the attack was "unspeakably horrible". However, few
> people would deny that in the grand scale of things it was a good thing
> because it ended a reign of terror, oppression and mass killings. We can
> only imagine how many lives were saved because of the attack, which killed
> so many innocent people.

I agree. And you can explain to me why that's a good thing.

>   If 3000 years ago there was a local nazi regime oppressing a region
> and God ordered for it to be stopped by force, was it a good or a bad
> thing? People were killed, yes, but how many were saved?
 >
>   It's easy to show outrage about some war which happened some 3000 years
> ago when you don't have all the details nor the exact reasons why that
> war was fought.

I believe you're missing the point of the question I'm asking.

Either you trust that God is right when he tells you to do things that seem 
evil, or you don't. You seem to be arguing that trusting God and doing evil 
things he commands is a reasonable idea, because God is more wise than us. 
Your argument that we don't know enough history to know why God commanded 
such attacks seems to be implying that those attacks were good for reasons 
we don't understand.

However, since atheists don't believe in God to start with, you can imagine 
why an atheist would argue against doing evil in the name of a fictional 
being for fictional reasons.


>   I think that the question you posing at least borders the false dilemma.
> You assume that an act must be either "good" or "evil", even though it's
> not necessarily that simple. There may be additional options.

Certainly I feel that way. However, there are many faithful who don't feel 
that way. God, to them, is 100% good, no evil present at all, and any evil 
one *thinks* God might have committed or commanded was really good in 
disguise. Voltaire did an entire book on the subject, you know.

I agree the question is a false dilemma, if you're a rational and reasonable 
and tolerant person. If you're the kind of person who thinks homosexuality 
is unholy, I can't imagine it's rational to also believe there are some 
circumstances where it's perfectly acceptable. If you're the kind of person 
who believes God needs your help enforcing his laws *because* they're 
inherently and universally moral, questioning whether that is actually so is 
a reasonable thing to do. Following the implications of such a stance is a 
reasonable thing to do, if you're of the bent that feels God disapproves not 
only of your own homosexuality but everyone else's as well. For example.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 22:48, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
>>> Because God is imaginary."
>>>
>>>   That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
> 
>> Sorry, but you can not judge a video by what you decide is it's main 
>> point. Nor is it your prerogative to decide for me what I should 
>> consider the most important points.
>> About that quote: It *is* a non-sequitur and therefore I dismissed it as 
>> of being of no value and I won't discuss any such nonsense that is not 
>> defended by anyone here.
> 
>   I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that yes,
> there is a flaw in the video, but that I shouldn't judge it for that flaw?

Sort of. It is horribly flawed in many respects. I though we had 
established that long ago. That aside, the guy wanted to express 
something within his own context. I, as usual, try to understand what he 
says even if the reasoning is flawed. You point out that somewhere in 
the video he says something and *because* that is his main message I 
*should* understand everything he says elsewhere in a different way. 
Well, then there is nothing left to say than that I don't accept that 
'because' because what you consider the main message, I consider BS. 
Moreover I object to that 'should' however nicely formulated, I'd like 
to be in charge of my own brain, thank you.

Post a reply to this message

On 6-7-2009 10:07, Warp wrote:

>   Atheists seem to do a quite good job at showing that they have some kind
> of universal moral code as well, when they criticize the bible.

Just to annoy you: I am an atheist and I don't have a universal moral 
code. In fact, as soon as I would discover that someone else had the 
same moral code as me, my behaviour towards him or her would become 
undefined.
To annoy you even more, I won't tell you why. As you may infer from the 
previous paragraph, nobody with my kind of ethics can tell anybody else 
for fear of finding someone that thinks the same.

Post a reply to this message

On 6-7-2009 20:24, Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> For those that you can't, there are lots of reasonable arguments 
>> against. In the end, since religion is by definition irrational[1], 
>> arguments are going to have to appeal to the gut instead of logic.
> 
> Forgot the footnote:
> 
> [1] Irrational is not necessarily bad. Love at first sight, the 
> awesomeness of the Hubble Space Telescope, and the cuteness of a kitten 
> are all irrational. Religion is irrational to the extent that it teaches 
> to shun evidence in favor of faith without evidence. That doesn't make 
> it bad per se, any more than preferring cabbage over broccoli is bad per 
> se.
> 
I prefer broccoli over cabbage, is that good?

Post a reply to this message