The thread of movie titles and absence of badges. In previous episodes, it was signs you're getting older, chiropractic vs. medicine, atheism vs. Mormonism and religion vs. science with no existentialism nor philosophy thrown in
-
Because he has less people voting on his idea of morality?
I dunno, I just think it's funny that someone says someone else has no right to declare anything moral or immoral as they declare morality. I mean, maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But he's definitely not very self aware.
-
Or, their entire civilizations arose, then collapsed back into nothingness over a couple of billion years, before planet Earth had even got this whole multicellular party started.
Space is big, but time is also a factor in our apparent isolation.
i meant that too... should have made it clear in my statement. far spatially or far temporaly
sorry for the confusion.
-
far spatially or far temporaly
Relative physics says that these are much the same things and the only variance is our perception of the concept. ;)
-
Besides the fact that there is no proof of it? No testable hypothesis? That seems to contradict science.
I'm not seeing the contradiction here. Why does any of that contradict anything science says?
-
Why does any of that contradict anything science says?
You have this warped, twisted view of exactly what science is...
-
Relative physics says that these are much the same things and the only variance is our perception of the concept.
it's a bit more complicated than that, but yes that is broadly true.
coloqually though they are two very different things, even if we do have a habit of talking about distance in terms of time (how long it takes to get there rather than how far away it is)
-
I didn't. There was a discussion about something else irrational and I likened something else to it.
-
Yeah, it would be a damned shame if god just had his people do what was right and accelerate the Civil Rights movement, etc.
There's been a lot of thought on this, commonly called theodicy, asking how God could allow evil into the world.
-
Is it similar to the process that your church uses to posthumously baptize dead people in the Mormon faith against theirs and their families wishes?
Nah, you just submit a written letter indicating your intentions to your local leadership.
Re you accusation: Those instances were done contrary to official policy (BTW, policy is not doctrine). Official policy dictates that to submit a name for baptisms for the dead[1] the person must:
- Be a direct ancestor, or immediately family member of a direct ancestor.
- If they died within 120 years, you must get permission from the closest living relative (spouse first, then children, then siblings, then parents).
There have been instances where these rules were not followed, and the proxy baptisms were striken from the records.
[1] Baptisms for the dead are done by proxy. We don't dig up any bodies for that.
-
You have this warped, twisted view of exactly what science is..
No, I don't. You never said what it contradicted. That might help this discussion.
-
That connects back to the other part of my original question, which I am actually curious about: how would the ccommunity react if this much lauded independent seeking of veracity would render such a conclusion?
Also, how are people who leave the LDS treated? Are they treated as though they may have been given the proper revelation from god? Or are they treated as...you know...shit?
Well that depends on the people. The church advises letting them go and continuing to treat them with compassion and kindness. But I can't speak to how people actually react.
-
I disagree.
Well, if you're claiming the right to disrespect anyone who believes things you don't agree with, that's a double-edged sword. In fact, I disrespect you for having that opinion.
Because he has less people voting on his idea of morality?
Actually he has more people voting on it. They're called Progressives or sometimes SJWs.
-
No, I don't. You never said what it contradicted. That might help this discussion.
Are you being intentionally or accidentally obtuse? Asking for a friend.
-
I was just using your post as a springboard for metaphysical rambling... ;<yoink>D
-
Well that depends on the people. The church advises letting them go and continuing to treat them with compassion and kindness. But I can't speak to how people actually react.
I can't either, but I can supply you with evidence. <by that I mean third-party anecdotes that are unverified. This is the internet, they are basically the same thing.>
-
-
Well, god is all-powerful and etc.? Are you saying that he could not have made it happen? Here we are finding the logical fallacies that exist in all religions.
I believe that God is all powerful. I also believe that he allows us to exercise our agency[1] as much as possible. In the case under discussion, he chose not to intervene in forcing the civil rights movement on the world. I suppose because the world wasn't yet ready.
[1] ability to choose
-
Do you believe if a lot of gay people get married there is going to be a massive storm? How do you know the difference between coincidence and divine intervention?
-
In the case under discussion, he chose not to intervene in forcing the civil rights movement on the world.
So, your concept of god does not always do what is right and instead tends to err on the side of "what is most convenient for the majority"? Got it. I am a straight white male. Sounds like the place for me. Where do I sign up?
-
Because that is exactly what equality is about, people are based on their merits not arbitrary physical traits that aren't relevant to the task.
Well, if God reveals that the priesthood will be available to all worthy persons, then fine. But for some reason, God's held it in reserve for men.
-
God's held it in reserve for men.
Because he is a misogynist? No longer really racist, but still misogynist?
-
Do you know how fucking circular that is. Men are saying that God says that Women aren't worthy persons yet and those are the same men who are in charge of things ...
You sure it just isn't blokes saying that blokes should always be in control?
-
BTW, just to add a little levity to the conversation, I notice you do not follow the recommendation in your avatar. ;)
-
I was just using your post as a springboard for metaphysical rambling... ;D
oh..... whoopsie.
sorry!
-
Do you believe if a lot of gay people get married there is going to be a massive storm?
No. I believe that homosexuality is a sin because it frustrates God's purpose in creating men and women.
-
Do you know how fucking circular that is. Men are saying that God says that Women aren't worthy persons yet ...
Not really a right of appeal available for women, eh?
You sure it just isn't blokes saying that blokes should always be in control?
There ya go.
-
Why did God make Gay animals then? Homosexuality is well documented in the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
-
No. I believe that homosexuality is a sin because it frustrates God's purpose in creating men and women.
So, what about vasectomies? Birth control? People who just choose not to have kids? Pulling out? Oral sex? Etc.?
You sure you are not just a Catholic with fancier underwear?
-
So, your concept of god does not always do what is right and instead tends to err on the side of "what is most convenient for the majority"? Got it. I am a straight white male. Sounds like the place for me. Where do I sign up?
No, I believe that God understands the importance of stepping back and letting us screw up. I believe that God understands the importance of timing when it comes to righting wrongs. I also believe that God knows a lot more than I do, and it will be a while before I can understand His reasoning for some of these things.
-
-
Well Jesus did have two Dads ... Joseph and God.
-
You sure you are not just a Catholic with fancier underwear?
Can anyone be sure of this? I mean, I've gone commando today, so...
-
Because He is fabulous.
What you are getting at, if I understand, is that god is a self-loathing gay (person/being/Chtulu)? See, that makes more sense than anything I have heard to this point.
-
You're welcome!
-
also believe that God knows a lot more than I do, and it will be a while before I can understand His reasoning for some of these things.
Get back to me why he apparently made a creature that its sole purpose it to bury itself into a child's eye and make that child blind.
EDIT : shit grammar.
-
Well Jesus did have two Dads ... Joseph and God.
Or...Mary just fucking lied because she did not want to be stoned to death by religious people and then shit snowballed from there?
-
It was wasps that did Darwin's faith in, wasn't it?
-
It was wasps that did Darwin's faith in, wasn't it?
Turtles man. It was turtles. Its turtles all the way down.
<actually it was likely finches, but that does not further my joke>
-
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/p200x200/10353020_10155126701235601_667686340707474808_n.jpg?oh=b2c4e01679c3b71d2d3f8f80c72f8f89&oe=553AB601&gda=1430164138_ba64fab727f3fac29c42fb3bf35513b4
-
Do you know how fucking circular that is. Men are saying that God says that Women aren't worthy persons yet and those are the same men who are in charge of things ...
You sure it just isn't blokes saying that blokes should always be in control?
Women are welcome to join another church. Yet they stay. They are allowed to question it for themselves. Yet they stay. They are permitted to bring any concerns to their local leadership. And they stay.
You remember that sustaining vote process I described earlier? A similar process is used every 6 months to sustain the church leadership, including the prophet, his councilors, and the quorum of the twelve apostles. The women get to participate in that. You know what? The prophet has recently said that the priesthood for the men is a point of doctrine, and he still got sustained.
Now, not having the priesthood doesn't stop the women from holding some leadership positions. They still lead the Relief Society, the Primary, and the Young Women's organizations, all the way from the local level to the global level.
-
I fundamentally reject that position. Equality means that everyone chooses, individually, what they want to do. Without external constraining factors.
-
Women are welcome to join another church. Yet they stay. They are allowed to question it for themselves. Yet they stay. They are permitted to bring any concerns to their local leadership. And they stay.
You can say similar things about victims of spousal abuse. What's your point?
-
...and turn off tracking...
-
That does not help if we reply to you.
-
I believe this is what the Foundiong Fathers of our great nation called the "Tyranny of the Majority".
-
Or @-mention you, @RaceProUK. ;)
-
So, what about vasectomies? Birth control? People who just choose not to have kids? Pulling out?
When used as part of family planning while prayerfully consulting with God, I have no objections to these.
-
I believe this is what the Foundiong Fathers of our great nation called the "Tyranny of the Majority".
As they continued the practice of slavery for another century (roughly speaking).
-
Why did God make Gay animals then? Homosexuality is well documented in the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
And the bible has a record of evil spirits so desperate to have bodies that they possessed pigs. Perhaps the two are related. How the hell should I know?
-
Recognizing and identifying a problem doesn't instantaneously solve the problem.
The slavery compromise is extremely well-discussed.