 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-7-2009 19:16, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Why to religions insist that you have to believe in a god before you
>> can go to
>> the good place when you die? Why is it not enough to be a good person?
>
> Only the monotheistic religions.
>
> Buddhism, for example, says (in some sense) you have to stop believing
> in God in order to go to the good place. :-)
>
> The Mayan religions held that you merely needed to die by blood in order
> to help save the world. As I ever so vaguely understand it, all the
> actual gods were already dead. The sacrifices were to help keep the
> world going after all the gods sacrificed themselves to make it.
> (Disclaimer: this was the audio track on a tourist attraction, so take
> it with some large-granule sea salt.)
>
> It makes sense that a monotheistic religion would need much more to
> convince you that their god is the right god.
>
And there are also the wee free men who believe they are already dead
because they live in such a good place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-7-2009 18:41, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Because you're believing in a different God than Ray Comfort or Fred Phelps.
>
> Btw, I don't know if you have noticed, but I have never stated what
> I believe in.
Don't worry, we noticed, I even made a reference to it a few times in
this thread.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BTW, I want to sincerely thank you for discussing this. I know it can get
annoying and frustrating to try to talk about such things, especially in
this medium.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> BTW, I want to sincerely thank you for discussing this. I know it can get
> annoying and frustrating to try to talk about such things, especially in
> this medium.
That's especially true because it's so easy to misunderstand what the
other is saying, especially with these types of subjects. I am first to
admit that I'm not 100% unprejudiced, and I always expect certain things
from people who challenge christianity.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's especially true because it's so easy to misunderstand what the
> other is saying, especially with these types of subjects.
Funny how discussing completely opposing viewpoints on the very existence
and meaning of the universe tends to cause that, isn't it? :-)
--
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 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:32:34 +0200, andrel wrote:
> I prefer broccoli over cabbage, is that good?
I prefer neither. I'll eat both. But I wouldn't use broccoli in
coleslaw or cabbage in ... Um, something that broccoli is an integral
component of that doesn't have "broccoli" in the name. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> If they had honestly been defending marriage
>
> Well, it was all BS. I have no idea why "marriage" would need defending.
> The only threat to anyones marriages were coming *from* the "defense of
> marriage" amendment.
>
The same people insist that they believe in an all knowing, all
powerful, omni-present god, who dictates virtually everything in the
known universe, and even knows who will sin and not sin, yet ***still***
think that **they** need to decide which is the one true faith following
him, and defend both that faith, and him, from attacks by people that
simply don't believe in the same things (or in any of it at all). Why
the hell wouldn't they imagine that "marriage" needed to be similarly
defended?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> So don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil union, even, and let
> organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.
>
Doesn't work. The fracking nuts "still" insist that its marriage, and
that some special "rights" are being taken from them, and therefor they
should fight it. You may as well ask them to stop attacking public
education as a whole, on the basis that they imagine its too secular and
run by Darwinists. Seen the latest news. Texas' local feudal lord (they
certainly don't seem to want to function as a representative of the
people) is considering replacing the existing insane head of the Texas
School Board with an even bigger dumb ass and nut case. You know the type:
1. Hasn't read their own Bible.
2. Hasn't read the constitution.
3. Hasn't read the Treaty of Tripoli.
3. Hasn't read "any" of the documents the founders created defining how
a state becomes a state, one of the requirements being that "You can't
be one, until you provide for education of the general public."
4. Is absolutely sure that>
a) We are a founded as Christian nation.
b) Thinks the constitution says you can have a theocracy, as long as
you are 'nice' about it.
c) Public schools are unconstitutional.
I don't care if you called it, "That totally immoral thing we allow
because the state says so.", ***they*** will call it fracking marriage
and send their zombies out with picket signs anyway. We are not dealing
with sane, rational, never mind *reality/fact based* people here.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need to
> be told what to do, anyway. An intelligent member, who is familiar with
> the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring out
> how to live a moral life.
>
Doesn't that kind of, sort of, run contrary to the idea that you "need"
an LDS church in the first place? Just saying, because... well, if they
think you still do, just so they can make sure you "do" know those
things, their way, then... this really isn't a truthful stance, is it?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:58:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jul 2009 22:44:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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.)
>> 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....)
>
> Jim
Mind, the church's conclusion isn't all that sane anyway. Tea contains
caffeine, in most cases, so does coffee, and more than a few other
things. Pretty much "everything" is a drug, if it has an effect on the
body, *including* the herbs and things that are "good for you". But,
what do you expect from people basing their stance on pre-science
thinking, and the same sort of, "if its natural, its not one of those
icky *drugs*", gibberish that feeds altie medicine as well. :p
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> That's a bit like arguing that a union didn't take an official stand
>> on an issue, but its "members" voted to go on strike....
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> The Union itself may or may not take an official stance on an issue, but
> its members most like share a number of characteristics (median income,
> living conditions, work environment, etc) that make them more likely to
> vote the same way.
>
> It's not the same thing.
>
Sorry, but you seem to be missing my point. The people "are" the union,
as far as what the union itself "does" about any of the stuff it votes
on. To suggest that a) it has no stance, and b) that stance isn't what
is "presented" to vote on, is just silly. How likely do you think it
would be that a church's priest(s) would go against its congregation,
instead of allowing them to "vote" in some sense on what issues they
plan to push?
Still, you may be right, its possibly not the right example.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
The truly stupid thing is, it was traditional for "large numbers" of the
early settlers, as was arranged marriages. It wasn't until later that
"both" fell out of favor. And the polygamy mainly because more liberal
groups, who liked women to have rights, took a good hard look at it and
realized that, as practiced, it pretty much completely denied "any"
rights to the women. Well, than and the idea that women might, if given
true rights, marry several men... Which would be the logical conclusion
of any system that "respected" the people involved, instead of demanding
that one of the two put out, shut up, and obey.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> (And btw, quotes are not used for emphasis, but for the exact opposite,
>> ie. de-emphasis.)
>
> Yeah. Sometimes the posts are almost unreadable due to that.
>
Snort.. Oddly, I thought quotes where to quote things, which is kind of
the opposite of deemphasizing them. Seriously though, you really have
that big of a problem with my style? What the hell did people do before
they had type facing, underlines, bold, etc.? :p
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think the problem is more what the leaders of the religion are saying.
> If the pope was out there advocating suicide bombers, I think there
> would be a better case against Catholics than there is now.
>
In the case of Catholics (or specifically their leadership, which most
don't pay much attention to anyway)... Quite frankly its what the
leadership "isn't" saying or doing that is the thing sinking that ship.
The only thing, at this point, which could make the diocese seem "more"
corrupt and insane would be finding the Pope in a closet, dressed in a
wetsuit, with stuff stuck in his varies openings, and a bunch of neck
ties around his throat. Sadly... One of our insane religious fanatics
beat him too that one.
Catholicism is a religion with a major personality disorder. On one
hand, its body (the lay people) mostly ignore what is going on in the
head (the Vatican), except when it has to, and goes on its own business,
as though nothing is wrong, while, on the other hand, the head has a bad
case of theological and moral Tourette Syndrome. It literally can't do,
or say, anything that isn't completely despicable, with the intent of
protecting itself from an increasing number of flat out stupid, evil, or
just plain bizarre, behaviors and ideas.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Actually, there's a web site called bbspot.com that regularly (like,
> every few months) manages to write a satire article that gets picked up
> and distributed by actual qualified news outlets like CNN or NYT. And
> it's not even religion.
>
Wonder if they where the ones that reported that Jeff Goldbloom had died
falling from a mountain, in New Zealand, and 'verified' it by talking to
the cops there? Colbert had Goldbloom on "during" his announcement of
his supposed death, and the later 'confirmation' that he had indeed
died. Funnier than hell.
>> Its like living in a world based on the movie Baron Münchhausen.
>
> You know Baron Münchhausen was a real person? And there's a sickness
> called "Baron Münchhausen Syndrome" which involves someone unable to
> stop making up unbelievable stories about his exploits.
>
You, I know. And its slightly scary to think how many people have failed
to be diagnosed with the same condition in the US. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> (And btw, quotes are not used for emphasis, but for the exact
>>> opposite,
>>> ie. de-emphasis.)
>>
>> Yeah. Sometimes the posts are almost unreadable due to that.
>>
> Snort..
I'm serious.
> Oddly, I thought quotes where to quote things, which is kind of
> the opposite of deemphasizing them.
No. Quoting something deemphasizes it.
Mary says "You're a fool."
Does that mean you're a fool like it would if I said you're a fool? Does it
sound like I'm agreeing with Mary?
When someone puts air-quotes around a statement, they're saying "Well,
that's what *they* call it, but we all know they're wrong."
Quotes attribute to someone else a statement that the person quoting it
isn't stating. Hence, if you're the one saying it, and you put quotes around
it, you're attributing that word to someone else, but since you're not
saying who, you're simply saying "I don't really mean this word the way I
wrote it."
> Seriously though, you really have
> that big of a problem with my style?
Seriously, 500-word sentences sprinkled liberally with incorrect punctuation
is, indeed, difficult to read and understand.
> What the hell did people do before
> they had type facing, underlines, bold, etc.? :p
Proper grammar. >89
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Wonder if they where the ones that reported that Jeff Goldbloom had died
> falling from a mountain, in New Zealand, and 'verified' it by talking to
Correct quote marks.
> the cops there? Colbert had Goldbloom on "during" his announcement of
Incorrect quote marks.
> his supposed death, and the later 'confirmation' that he had indeed
Correct quote marks.
> died. Funnier than hell.
See how the second set of quote marks are not saying "Really really
confirmed", but rather "claimed to be confirmed but not really"? How you
put quotes around the word "verified" to say "they said it was verified, but
obviously they were incorrect"?
Just sayin'.... :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> WARNING: Don't watch this video unless you have an IQ of about
> 140...you're guaranteed to lose 30-40 points just by watching this video
> (or so the friend of mine who posted this claims)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs
I've gone bananas!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Snort.. Oddly, I thought quotes where to quote things, which is kind of
> the opposite of deemphasizing them.
In writing, quotes can be used for several purposes, but emphasis has
never been one of them. There are basically three main purposes they can
be used for:
- Literal quotes. You write literally what someone has said and denote this
with the quotes. An example would be:
He said that "all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the
most plausible one."
- Mark a word as having some special meaning, such being a title, a slang
word or an alias. An examples:
Miles "Tails" Prower is a playable character in the "Sonic the Hedgehog"
game series.
- Denote an euphemism or ironic expression, or denote that the meaning of
the word should not be taken literally (iow. de-emphasis). Example:
He got to "third base", if you know what I mean.
> What the hell did people do before
> they had type facing, underlines, bold, etc.? :p
Since the dawn of internet *asterisks* have been used for emphasis (as
a substitute for bolding) in online communication. This is, of course, a
completely informal convention. In printed media cursive is the de-facto
method for emphasis. Sometimes underlining as well.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In printed media cursive is the de-facto
> method for emphasis. Sometimes underlining as well.
Actually, underlining was used in proof reading to indicate the underlined
word should be italicized. Since you couldn't by hand easily overwrite a
word with italics. That's where the "underline is italic" convention came from.
I'm not sure what they did for boldface, tho. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The "murder of innocent babies" might sound horrible to you,
That fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that all of mankind,
all herbivores, and all serpents are still paying for? That Jesus had to die
to forgive us for? Doesn't seem to work too well. ;-)
--
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 7-7-2009 16:55, Warp wrote:
> - Mark a word as having some special meaning, such being a title, a slang
> word or an alias. An examples:
>
> Miles "Tails" Prower is a playable character in the "Sonic the Hedgehog"
> game series.
>
In this usage it can also be used as brackets that indicate that the
whole thing in quotes is used as a single syntactic element. Your
'"Sonic the Hedgehog"' is also an example of this usage.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Wonder if they where the ones that reported that Jeff Goldbloom had
>> died falling from a mountain, in New Zealand, and 'verified' it by
>> talking to
>
> Correct quote marks.
>
>> the cops there? Colbert had Goldbloom on "during" his announcement of
>
> Incorrect quote marks.
>
>> his supposed death, and the later 'confirmation' that he had indeed
>
> Correct quote marks.
>
>> died. Funnier than hell.
>
> See how the second set of quote marks are not saying "Really really
> confirmed", but rather "claimed to be confirmed but not really"? How
> you put quotes around the word "verified" to say "they said it was
> verified, but obviously they were incorrect"?
>
> Just sayin'.... :-)
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah.. At this point its frakking habit, and... those are
hard to break. Same, to some extent, with the long sentences. Its how I
am *actually* thinking at the time I write it, and getting the thought
out. To break it up would require going back and logically reworking the
entire structure in most cases, and I am usually also thinking about 4-5
other things I am planning to do *after*, so actually stopping to look
and see if I did such a thing isn't natural for me. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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).
"Utah Mormons" are the scourge of the Church, and a detriment to
society. They are both more judgmental and less forgiving than members
of the Church in virtually any other part of the world.
They also tend to have lower IQs, from my experience with them.
> "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".
No, it would not. Now, if you drank Coffee or Tea, then yes.
> 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".
I never claimed it was accurate, only that it was what the Mormons
believe. Besides, for a somewhat conservative religion springing out of
19th century revivalism, it seems quite progressive.
That the world eventually caught up and passed them isn't their fault.
After all, they were waiting for God to say, "When."
> 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.
That's more in line with the research I've seen as well.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> I can see how that could make my position confusing, though, and I
>> should have been more clear.
>
> OK. Altho I must say, if the teaching of the church is that all blacks
> are descendants of the first murderer and cannot be spiritually whole,
> it kind of throws a wrench into the McCain/Obama "vote whoever you feel
> best about" doctrine. :-)
That's not really the teaching, though a lot of people (Mormons
included, unfortunately) take it that way.
What it really is, is that one particular group of people were colored
black because they descended from Cain.
But, wait a minute... there are SEVERAL colors of people, and several
different ethnic groups that are "black"! Which is which?!?!?
Mormon doctrine doesn't say anything about the other groups, where they
came from or how they came to be the way they are.
Like I said, though, that's a common misunderstanding.
>> Yeah, that one surprised a lot of people at the time,
>
> Funny. My understanding from other Mormons is that everyone at the time
> knew exactly why God had commanded that. Namely, that Mrs Smith didn't
> like cleaning up when people missed the spittoon.
That complaint started it... the response of the Lord was basically,
"Since you asked, you're getting the whole deal..."
A prohibition on tobacco like that was pretty much unprecedented,
however, and it surprised the majority of people.
>>> To masturbate? To be homosexual?
>> Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.
>
> Well, since that's the specific bit we're talking about, and it sounds
> like the church is giving specific instructions about what to do about
> that, I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
Well, you happened to touch on one of the few subject where the Church
gets really specific. You seemed to be taking my statement about
generality and saying, "That can't be right because of this instance!"
when that instance is one of the few exceptions.
>>> when he mentioned that homosexuality is unholy?
>
>> What's wrong with saying that homosexuality is unholy? Whether or not
>> you believe it is your decision, but it's one of the teachings of the
>> LDS Church, and they're unapologetic about it.
>
> Sure. But then to say "but we won't tell you how to vote on the gay
> marriage bill" is being kind of disingenuous.
Not particularly. My own understanding of the issues led me to believe
that I should vote for bills like that. While I couldn't (as a member
of the Church) approve of homosexual behavior, I also couldn't approve
of discrimination against homosexuals.
Not to mention, that I think it's just plain stupid to try and legislate
morality.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> How many BYU professors (for
> example) have been dismissed for being seen to be challenging the
> Church's authority?
That's actually an instance where I would side with the Church.
BYU is a privately funded university, and the Church has a vested
interest in keeping tabs on what, exactly, is taught there. I'd expect
them to be hard on professors that don't toe the line, just like I would
a private school run by Jehovah's Witnesses, or Jesuits, or any other
religious group.
It's not like they're using state funds to run the place. If you don't
like what they teach, then don't go there - go to University of Utah
instead, which is a public university.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Doesn't that kind of, sort of, run contrary to the idea that you "need"
> an LDS church in the first place? Just saying, because... well, if they
> think you still do, just so they can make sure you "do" know those
> things, their way, then... this really isn't a truthful stance, is it?
One of the first things they ask potential converts to do is pray and
ask God if He thinks joining the Church is a good idea. Those who think
God says "no" are free to pursue other religious organizations, or to
practice unorganized (disorganized?) religion instead.
(In fact, members are frequently reminded to continue asking God if
everything they've heard recently in Church is true, and if they should
accept it).
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sorry, but you seem to be missing my point. The people "are" the union,
OK. When I talk of "The Church" (or "The Union"), I'm speaking of the
organization, and not the individuals that comprise it (even as a group).
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
Well, I never lived in Utah, so it could be that the areas I've lived in
were ones where the LDS Church simply didn't have enough influence to do
things like that.
From what I've seen of members who come from Utah, I don't think I
would like living there, anyway.
> 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.
Well, you can't blame them for being consistent. Extension of the
Priesthood to women would require divine revelation. If and when it
comes, then it will be accepted. Until God says so, however, the LDS
Church is going to keep doing things the same way, unapologetically.
The persecutions that members suffered during the early 19th century
have created an inherited culture of martyrdom, you might say. Members
are constantly regaled with stories of individuals who stood by their
beliefs, despite threats (or acts of) extreme violence.
Can you blame them, after all that, for sticking with what they believe,
whether or not it's popular?
>>> 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?
The stance on polygamy is quite clear. It was practiced because God
allowed it to be. It was halted because God commanded it to be.
There's nothing else to it.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It wasn't until later that
> "both" fell out of favor. And the polygamy mainly because more liberal
> groups,
It had nothing to do with falling out of favor (see my reply to Jim on
popular opinion) or because of liberal groups within the Church.
The practice of Polygamy was halted because the President at the time
(Wilford Woodruff, I believe) said that God told him it was time to stop.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> So don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil union, even, and let
>> organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.
>>
> Doesn't work. The fracking nuts "still" insist that its marriage, and
> that some special "rights" are being taken from them,
Yeah, there's not much you can do about the nutjobs except wait for them
to die off :(
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Marriage has nothing to do with that. Virtually all joint bank
>> accounts are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one owner
>> dies the remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.
>
> Unless, you know, it was only opened by one person. Then where does it go?
In Community Property states, it goes to the spouse.
I strongly disagree with CP, however, and in fact live in a state that
doesn't recognize it.
>> In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share
>> passes to their estate,
>
> And who gets the estate if there isn't a will?
I'd have to consult an estate lawyer on that one.
>> If you'd like my honest opinion, I would say the stepmother.
>
> Why? If the government has no recognition of marriage, why would the
> government let the stepmother have custody of the child?
Not for the filial relationship, but because of the living arrangements
prior to the death of the father. The stepmother lived with the child
as a caregiver, so she should be allowed to continue that role.
>> If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part.
>> It's not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. You're trying to deny that the
> question won't come up.
No, the question already comes up. I'm trying to say that either
"solution" won't really solve anything.
>> As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple,
>> easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.
>
> We have that. We call it "marriage". See? :-)
So if I want my brother's son to be my heir, I have to marry him? :o
> That's not a default. A default means "what if I don't do that?"
If someone is thoughtless enough to not do anything at all, then let it
all go to the State. It can even go into a welfare fund or something.
> If you're religiously married, and your spouse doesn't have a will, and
> you die, do you get any of his money, or does it all go to the children
> immediately?
If you die, I don't think you should get ANY of the money ;)
>> The fact that "marriage" is a loaded word, with a lot of history,
>> assumptions and ideas that go with it. Assumptions and ideas that
>> make people get itchy for a fight, like is happening now with laws &
>> amendments covering gay marriage.
>
> That fight has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with
> gay. You're falling for the propaganda.
Sorry, maybe I should specify: it's the religious nuts who get itchy for
a fight. They're already offended that other people can have different
opinions, and just looking for an excuse.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to protect
> us from the stupidity of others, no? So in this instance, the government
> would be protecting the rightful heirs from the stupidity of the
> deceased. They're certainly not protecting the deceased from his/her own
> stupidity: The deceased is, by definition, no longer a party to the
> affairs in question.
How do you know its stupidity? Maybe he didn't leave a will because he
didn't want his family getting any of his money.
Of course, that brings up the question of whether or not you should be
able to decide what happens to your property after you die.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who
> "wow" us.
The thing about Democracy is, it ensures that a people is governed no
better than they deserve.
(Mark Twain? Oscar Wilde? I don't remember)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Marriage has nothing to do with that. Virtually all joint bank
>>> accounts are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one
>>> owner dies the remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.
>>
>> Unless, you know, it was only opened by one person. Then where does it
>> go?
>
> In Community Property states, it goes to the spouse.
Right. That's my point. If the government completely stops recognizing
marriage, who is the spouse, and how does he or she get the money from the bank?
>>> In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share
>>> passes to their estate,
>>
>> And who gets the estate if there isn't a will?
>
> I'd have to consult an estate lawyer on that one.
These weren't intended to be "who gets it now" questions. These were
intended to be "who gets it if the government completely fails to
acknowledge marriage in any legal capacity?"
>>> As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple,
>>> easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.
>>
>> We have that. We call it "marriage". See? :-)
>
> So if I want my brother's son to be my heir, I have to marry him? :o
No, you simply have to write a will.
>> That's not a default. A default means "what if I don't do that?"
>
> If someone is thoughtless enough to not do anything at all, then let it
> all go to the State. It can even go into a welfare fund or something.
Sure. And kick the spouse out onto the street. Very compassionate. Maybe she
can get some of that welfare fund when you sell of the deceased's house and
don't give any to the spouse.
> Sorry, maybe I should specify: it's the religious nuts who get itchy for
> a fight. They're already offended that other people can have different
> opinions, and just looking for an excuse.
Right. Which is why it's not a question of marriage at all.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> That complaint started it... the response of the Lord was basically,
> "Since you asked, you're getting the whole deal..."
Ooooookaaaaaaay!
> A prohibition on tobacco like that was pretty much unprecedented,
> however, and it surprised the majority of people.
>
>>>> To masturbate? To be homosexual?
>>> Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.
>>
>> Well, since that's the specific bit we're talking about, and it sounds
>> like the church is giving specific instructions about what to do about
>> that, I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
>
> Well, you happened to touch on one of the few subject where the Church
> gets really specific.
Well, except that the Mormons came into the conversation here because of
Prop 8 in CA.
> You seemed to be taking my statement about
> generality and saying, "That can't be right because of this instance!"
> when that instance is one of the few exceptions.
I didn't say "that can't be right." I just pointed out the most blatent
counter-example. If that's really a rarity, and I have no reason to doubt
your word on that, then I've learned something. :-)
> Not particularly. My own understanding of the issues led me to believe
> that I should vote for bills like that. While I couldn't (as a member
> of the Church) approve of homosexual behavior, I also couldn't approve
> of discrimination against homosexuals.
I'll assume you meant "vote against" if we're talking about the CA
initiatives, since gays already had the right to marry until the religious
fanatics decided to enforce their questionable morality on those not of
their faith. But I applaud your free thinking. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.. At this point its frakking habit, and... those are
> hard to break.
Agreed. I'm just trying to help. If you actually know the difference and
apply it where it counts (like, say, writing documents at work to be
distributed to customers or bosses or something), that's cool. It just
wasn't clear to me you understood the difference.
> Same, to some extent, with the long sentences.
I do the same thing, altho not to such an extent. I often have to go back,
find the breaks between sentences, and stick in full stops and capitals. :-)
--
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 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:39:09 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to
>> protect us from the stupidity of others, no? So in this instance, the
>> government would be protecting the rightful heirs from the stupidity of
>> the deceased. They're certainly not protecting the deceased from
>> his/her own stupidity: The deceased is, by definition, no longer a
>> party to the affairs in question.
>
> How do you know its stupidity? Maybe he didn't leave a will because he
> didn't want his family getting any of his money.
Then that is something that should be stated as an *explicit* wish so
there's no doubt about it.
> Of course, that brings up the question of whether or not you should be
> able to decide what happens to your property after you die.
True enough.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:40:06 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who
>> "wow" us.
>
> The thing about Democracy is, it ensures that a people is governed no
> better than they deserve.
>
> (Mark Twain? Oscar Wilde? I don't remember)
Yeah, I like that quote, and also don't recall who it was....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:23:40 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, I never lived in Utah, so it could be that the areas I've lived in
> were ones where the LDS Church simply didn't have enough influence to do
> things like that.
>
> From what I've seen of members who come from Utah, I don't think I
> would like living there, anyway.
It is kinda unusual here, yeah, there's little doubt about that. I've
lived in Minnesota and Florida as well, and the influence of the dominant
religion is very very apparent.
>> 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.
>
> Well, you can't blame them for being consistent. Extension of the
> Priesthood to women would require divine revelation. If and when it
> comes, then it will be accepted. Until God says so, however, the LDS
> Church is going to keep doing things the same way, unapologetically.
See, and I just find it far, far too convenient that the revelations on
blacks in the priesthood came right at the end of the civil rights
movement. That doesn't sound like divine revelation to me, that sounds
like "we'd better do this or we'll fall afoul of the new laws".
> The persecutions that members suffered during the early 19th century
> have created an inherited culture of martyrdom, you might say. Members
> are constantly regaled with stories of individuals who stood by their
> beliefs, despite threats (or acts of) extreme violence.
That's true of most religions - ones that are perceived well and ones
that aren't.
> Can you blame them, after all that, for sticking with what they believe,
> whether or not it's popular?
Depends on the belief. I can't respect those who continue to stand by
this idea of intelligent design as a scientific approach to explaining
the world given the massive amount of evidence that it's simply not the
case - any more than I can respect those who still believe the world is
flat and the moon landings were faked.
>>>> 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?
>
> The stance on polygamy is quite clear. It was practiced because God
> allowed it to be. It was halted because God commanded it to be. There's
> nothing else to it.
Well, there again, it's awfully convenient that God decided it was no
longer allowed to be practiced when the laws of man made it illegal in
the state of Utah. That also doesn't sound like divine revelation, but
more of an "oh crap, we're going to run afoul of the laws of the land
unless we change".
But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended - I
guess that depends on whose tradition you're following as well, given
that it was the tradition of the early LDS church (and other groups like
the FLDS even today) that it is/was polygamistic in nature. So while
some groups are screaming that "traditional marriage must be defended at
all costs", they're talking about their traditions which may go back
hundreds or thousands of years, but for those in the LDS Church, it's
more like a hundred years or so (the practice ended in the late 19th
century, right?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
