As for alcoholic beverages and tri-breasted feline humanoids in the Mormon thread, I'm a bit at a loss as to how things got off this far...oh wait...Frink had some cute little response. Question answered ;)
So much fun in this thread and so little time to respond. Bingowings, all I can say about Kolob is that it's not very clear what that refers to or if it's literal or metaphysical or simply symbolic. It's a term hardly used in Mormon lingo, so don't get too hung up on it. After typing this, I decided to look up what FAIR had to say about it.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Kolob
Since we do believe in a God with a physical body instead of an ethereal everywhere/nowhere Being, it might make sense if there is a planet that he lives on (nearest to a star called Kolob, not the name of the planet itself). However, people use this to make things rather sci-fi sounding. My question is that since science learned that the clouds are uninhabitable, where does the rest of the Christian world believe Heaven is? Is it another world? If so, why does Kolob draw so much ridicule (not from you, but from many)?
As for the extent of his rule being limited to this galaxy, I suspect that is more sci-fi interpretation by those who wish to alienate us. I can only think of one person who hypothesized that (namely, Joseph Fielding Smith in Answers to Gospel Questions I believe, which is by no means an official publication of Church doctrine). It has been stated by apostles on more than one occasion that God rules over the universe--the whole, big, as infinite as we can fathom universe (Fielding Smith was an apostle and later a prophet, but not at the time of writing that, nor did he ever say that as far as I'm aware).
Well, Frink did shoot first ;)
Hal 9000 said:
Star Trek V always reminded me of Mormonism.
God has a body of flesh and bone, right?
Yes, a doctrine many find offensive. But we do believe that.
I know the concept of the 'burning in the bosom' has historically been important to Mormons.
I do have an earnest question, though. The Mormons (or LDS, I apologize if I use terms or titles that would not be preferred) in recent decades have pitched Mormonism as being basically another Christian denomination. What say you about this? Isn't classical Christianity an abomination according to LDS doctrine, indeed another gospel that Paul said should be cursed? If Smith was to restore the gospel, doesn't that mean historical Christianity was hopelessly wrong? I guess my real question is... should Mormonism be lumped in the Christian camp with all its historical inheritance, or be considered something different (restoration or otherwise)?
As a case example, classical Christianity (at least the Protestant tradition) maintains the principle of sola gracia and sola fide, or salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Can Mormonism really hold to these in order to be considered Christian in the classical sense? If something like celestial marriage is required, which is an essential element that is absent from historic Christianity, aren't the two things fundamentally distinct?
I'm not trying to get at which is true, if either. Rather, I just want to be clear about what's what.
Your question is absolutely fair. I don't think we have ever tried to pass ourselves off as "just another" Christian denomination. We teach that we are a Christian denomination, but not like any other. Many will try to state that we are not Christian, but we disagree. We are Christian, but not like any other. Indeed, we believe that are the most Christian denomination, because we believe that we follow the most correct form of Christianity. To say that we believe all other denominations are an abomination, that likely comes from Joseph Smith's First Vision (v. 19 specifically, though I've given a broader highlight). We believe that the teachings of Jesus had been corrupted after his death and the death of the apostles. Being in a state of apostasy, their teachings were an abomination. Scripturally, when God's people were in a state of apostasy, he did not address their teachings with the most polite language. Note his criticism of rabbinical Judaism during his mortality. However, I don't believe that it is our prerogative to look at those churches the same way. Just as there were many righteous Jews living their religion to the best of their ability, we believe that most Christians are good people, teaching good, if not always correct teachings, often living very Christ-like lives. I served my mission in Atlanta, GA, and I think I learned to be a much better Christian from those not of my faith.
As for salvation by grace through faith, that's a hot topic. I think I addressed it at least once before, but I've got to get going. Let me try to be brief. Catholics are very ritualistic and do believe in the importance of works, but few doubt that they are Christian. Many denominations, especially non-Protestant denominations (and believe me, there are many, and they all total far more than the Protestants) believe in works. I read this article a while back and thought it was good at the time, so maybe it will clarify (it's been a while, so I'm not positive). But let me give you a simple analogy. If I'm drowning in a lake, and Jesus throws me a life preserver, I'm going to grab it and hang on with all my might while he pulls me to his boat. Now I did some works there by holding on, and had to keep doing works till I got to safety. I had faith Jesus would save me, and he ultimately did. He saved me, in spite of me showing my faith and exerting my feeble efforts. Salvation is through the grace of Christ, and not of my own works. Hope that clarifies. I'll try to get more in depth at a later time if you like, but it helps if you remind me ;)
Please enlighten.
I used to live in Tucson and attended the UA. I wonder where they're putting the temple. I'll let them know you're yard is available :)
The architecture is clearly so we can commune with the paranormal. When we say, "The Church of Jesus Christ," we clearly mean Gozer ;)
I don't know about buying alcohol or about doing so in Utah, so...good luck! ;)
And Hal, what is your pain? Share it with me!
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/gilbert/
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/phoenix/
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mesa/
These are the three in that area. I don't see any eyesores, though :) They look beautiful to me. A new AZ temple was announced today: Tucson.
Every 6 months, in April and October, the Church holds a General Conference which is broadcast all over the world. Anyone interested in watching a portion can check out the official site:
the times are at 10:00 and 2:00 MST (under that silly daylight savings thingamajig, which we in AZ refuse to participate in).
Just FYI.
Davnes007 said:
How "used" is the motor oil?
With today's oil prices, I need to find bargains where ever I can.
Only 2,000 miles on the oil, though I'm not sure what the green and orange chunks floating in it are. I'll throw in a sifter if that would help.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I have been looking forward to creating a Commie Castro Clone Platoon, so that cord may be of some use to me ...
I've been rummaging through my stuff and I think I found Raul's placenta as well...could throw that in if you like.
Tyrphanax said:
TV's Frink said:
Tyrphanax said:
Can I buy your spine since your wife has you whipped?
Get married and have kids and *then* say that.
I know. I'm just sad and alone and lashing out.
I see where you're coming from. She can be so unreasonable sometimes! She was even more adamant about selling the cat! Don't worry Tyr. One day you'll get your own ball and chain. ;)
Broken fan
B&W CRT TV with rabbit ears
Three children: buy two, get one free! (no longer for sale due to veto-wielding wife)
Lot of 461 pirated VHSs of 80s and 90s films
Rubber ducky
Fidel Castro's umbilical cord (not sure if legitimate)
Signed William Shatner toupee
Slightly used engine oil
Insect collection from my grandfather, circa 1929
Let me know if your interested and I'll give you google maps directions.
Saw Independence Day for the first time in years the other day. I'd forgotten how weak the effects and designs were. And it once again struck home how we Americans value arrogance in our heroes and non-self-conscious big mouthed black men. With Will Smith we get both! This is not intended as racism, but rather a commentary on how we perpetuate ignorant differences between the races. Imagine if Tom Cruise in Top Gun acted like Smith did here. It would not be funny--it'd be obnoxious and he'd be looked at as an idiot. But we can all laugh at the extremely outspoken black man because, well, he's black...and black people are always funny. Essentially, I'm actually calling the repeated portrayals of black people like that as racist.
Watched the end of Timeline last night (I'd seen it before, but it's been a while and the wife had already watched most of it), based on the Michael Crichton novel. I've never read the book, but what I have read from Crichton is pretty good, and this movie, while interesting conceptually, is just full of dumb cliches and lame characters. I think of all the weirdness I saw, the part that makes me laugh the most is when the French and English simultaneously launch fiery arrows at each other during a nighttime battle. Okay, right? Then the English quickly launch another volley of "night arrows" (also known as "arrows"). Yes, these night arrows are not lit on fire! They then strike the French who are preparing their next volley of fiery arrows and can't see the night arrows until they are hit without their shields defending themselves. All the while, the snooty, arrogant bad guy watches with a big smirk on his face. The nerve of that guy! How dare he be so amoral as to launch night arrows in a war!? Doesn't he know you're supposed to give your enemy every possible advantage? But he smiles like a jerk because he's soooooo evil and values his apparent tactical brilliance over a fair fight. Just. So. Lame.
Needs more *sighs*. ;)
Dear LFL,
If this project sounds too ambitious, feel free to download the open-source program called GIMP. That way you could fix everything and save a pretty penny. Can you believe Photoshop costs $700?! So just "GIMP it out," so to speak, and undo all those little changes so we can enjoy the OT. Then include it in your 40th anniversary set. Oh, and for special features, please include a guide on how to make prefect otemeal.
Con mucho amor,
darth_ender
So I'm getting behind a trilogy better now, just because I do like the idea of more background information being made accessible. As long as Jackson shows fidelity to Tolkein's intents for the most part, I think I can support the full trilogy.
This article struck me as interesting:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1694086/the-hobbit-trailer.jhtml
It includes the new trailer (finally!), which I can't watch right now but I'm excited to see.
Most interesting to me was the background information on Radagast the Brown. So much of Gandalf's wizard order is merely inferred and not revealed in the books. Seeing another wizard would be, frankly, pretty stinkin' cool. And while never explicitly stated, it seems that the Necromancer in the Hobbit was likely supposed to be Sauron in the end, or considering the Hobbit preceded TLOTR by so many years, he served merely as an inspiration for the later expanded Sauron idea. It seems that the Hobbit films will definitively tie the two together.
Also fun, if you'd like to play some riddles in the dark, go here:
http://apps.warnerbros.com/thehobbit/riddles/us/
You can guess and submit your own.
I tremble in my wee little boots! Funny because conservatives are generally more open to choice. Obamacare limits choice. Political correctness limits choice. Many liberal policies limit choice. But when it comes to ending someone's life because it interferes with someone else's, oh let's not limit choice just because a human life is on the line!
You're right, we both came here with our minds made up. But you bumped this thread with an extremely ignorant comment, and if you are going to argue, even if you don't plan on changing my mind, you will have to do better to convince me that you are at least approaching it from an intelligent angle.
Lucky apparently to have not yet caught a serious STD.
^^I don't believe in that commandment. I prefer "Thou shalt not kill." ;)
Yes, I do believe in the afterlife. And I am aware of your (DuracellEnergizer's) view on human life--quite existential if I remember correctly (can't remember where I read that, maybe earlier in this thread?). I'm equally curious as to your views on euthanasia, eugenics, murder, etc., considering "humans are the source of everything wrong with this world," or something along those lines.
As for how my religious views affect my perception of mortality and the value of human life, it could be a lengthy discussion better suited for my Mormon questions thread. To be brief and on topic here, I do not consider it justifiable to kill so children return to God, in spite of my belief that all children who die do indeed return to him. I believe there is more to it than that, and that God is ultimately the one who should determine when we leave this world.
walkingdork said:
TV's Frink said:
darth_ender said:
I'm sorry, but the "abortion should be legal in all cases" mentality is equally pervasive and annoying. But neither you nor I completely hold to those arguments (as mentioned before, I personally allow for some, albeit few and limited, exceptions--and I doubt you feel that abortion should have no restrictions). Still, I'd always rather err on the side of caution, even in my giving way to the other side.
I was referring more to Ferris' post, although you did complement it.
The "abortion should always be legal" side is much smaller, btw. There are very few people who think it's fine to abort a fetus at 39-1/2 weeks just for the hell of it.
What Frink said
Walkingdork, your contributions of late have really increased our understanding. Word! ;)
Alright, so this is actually mostly in response to Frink.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
It matters not which side is bigger or smaller. Does the number of supporters give you or me more of a right to be annoyed? But since we're comparing, it looks that you are absolutely incorrect. Over the past several years, the "under any circumstance" abortion advocates are significantly more plentiful than "not under any circumstance" pro-life advocates. The largest group believes in "only a few circumstances", so that is a good thing and it's probably where I would place myself were I given this poll. However, such a question leaves a lot of leeway, and clearly the laws don't reflect such polling. As to late term abortions, there are still 10% of our nation who support third trimester abortions. That is not a trivial number.
What probably aggravates me the most is that abortion is justified because the child is just a "bunch of cells" and would feel no pain. Is pain the defining criterium of what makes someone human and deserving of human rights? What about fear? This video seems to show that aborted children actually fear what is happening, regardless of how much pain they experience. Why is fear not factored in? Is it because the omniscient scientists cannot detect when a child gains a sense of fear?
Regardless of whether or not Abby Johnson's story is accurate, children do try to escape their deaths. And liberals, who are usually so in favor of educated decisions, seem to favor reducing education so that a woman's perspective won't be "tainted."
^^Excellent points, Tyrphanax! It truly is a thrilling thought!
DuracellEnergizer said:
darth_ender said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
Abortion frees the spirit from the prison that is flesh.
So, by the same logic, killing of any kind is acceptable, right?
The entity goes with a minimum of fuss, feeling no pain or awareness as the deed is done. Working someone to death in a concentration camp, however, and similar scenarios, belong to another hand altogether.
But at least they're freed from their prison of suffering flesh when they die!
Of course I find such things horrible, but to me, the value of human life does not depend on the person's ability to recognize that his/her life is in any danger or the suffering that precedes that death.
Warbler said:
darth_ender said: If a human is in a coma with little brain activity, he/she too is little more than a bunch of cells. But if the doctors do believe there is any chance of recovery, it would certainly be unethical to "pull the plug" under any circumstances.
under any circumstances? what if the patient signed a living will stating that under those circumstances, he/she would like the plug pulled?
Again, I wasn't taking something into consideration, not because I was aware of it, but more because I meant that the doctors would not make that decision on their own. A living will is a person's own wishes. The infant has no ability to make any decision on its own and deserves to have its rights protected by those with power of him or her.
I had gone chronologically in the Ender storyline, but now I've reverted back to the Shadow storyline, though I included Ender's Shadow in my first storyline to get a more complete picture of Ender himself and so I could remember details of Ender's Game as freshly as possible while reading its parallel. As those who read my reviews know, I was not pleased with the portrayal of Julian Delphiki aka Bean.
Now, having completed Shadow of the Hegemon, I must say that this book left a far better taste in my mouth. Bean is older, and yet he is more human and less calculating. His character is far more believable and realistic, his flaws more apparent, his personality more relatable. He is more subject to passion and personal goals than pure cold reasoning. As a four to six year old, he was a computer, something I found horribly obnoxious. Now as an older child, he is actually a human. I find this not to be a character development, but an improvement by the author himself. I wish he'd retcon his first book in this series a bit for this reason.
This story details the life of Bean after the war with the Buggers. Though Ender set off in a relativistic journey, Bean returned home to earth, no longer united behind a common enemy of alien invaders, but instead filled with ambitious nations wishing to unite earth under a single government. Bean, the brightest of the Battle School bunch, cannot fight this war alone, so he enlists the aid of Ender's older brother, who is filled with nothing less than arrogance, ambition, and a great deal of sadism. But in this book, we see that in spite of his character flaws, he too is a redeemable and likeable person in his own way. Interestingly, while Bean was extremely ambitious in his post Bugger War plans in the first book, he is explicitly described as not ambitious in this book, again, motivated by people he cares about rather than dominating the world and winning wars.
I like how this story played out. The politics and war of the future are plausible and interesting.
SPOILERS:
Bean loses the woman who pulled him out of the ghetto thanks to his nemesis of childhood who has attained great political power of his own. Bean also learns of his genetic alterations that make him superintelligent as well as small in size, but ultimately results in perpetual growth. Bean rescues the only female mentioned in Battle School, Petra, who is clearly set up for a relationship in the future, should he be willing to join with any woman; he fears passing along his abnormal genes.
END SPOILERS:
I enjoyed this book far more than I remembered. Possibly it has to do with my increased familiarity with geography and geopolitics than the last two times. But I also liked the portrayal of our primary protagonist as well as his somewhat unscrupulous ally. The antagonist is the only character I have a bit of a hard time believing in, considering the amount of power adults are willing to hand over to a child. Nevertheless, this was a good book.