Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Jamie

Members
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jamie

  1. 42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

    Sigh...those results are the same regardless of whether tobacco use or alcohol is classified as a sin. You're coming at this exactly backwards. 

    The classification of something as a sin simply means it is classified as something that is bad and should not be done, according to what God has told us.  And as is really the case, it is really bad for us and therefore something we should not do.

    God is right, and always is right, after all.

  2. 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

    Many Jim Crow laws were the same for blacks and whites, perfectly fair, as you say. Property requirements, citizenship tests, and even the requirement to have an official address were applied to black and white potential voters. They were designed, however, such that equal application of the law would result in unequal ability to exercise the rights of citizenship. 

    The Honor Code is designed to deny expression of love and relationships to those with same-gender orientation. One might say it is applied equally, but the end result is that one class of students is enabled and encouraged to develop the full range of human relationship. The other class is not. 

    I think of my friend in his forties who is lonely and miserable. Has the church treated him “unfairly”? Does he have the same ability to love and be loved as heterosexual members? Obviously not.

    Does the church have a right to deny fulfillment to its gay members? Of course. Are they going to change anytime soon? Nope. 

    That is the basic question, as I see it.  Does BYU get to decide what is and is not acceptable and honorable behavior at BYU, or must BYU abide by government mandates over and above what BYU may decide for itself. 

    Who is to rule at BYU?  Who are the ultimate decision makers in regard to policies and codes at BYU?  BYU leaders?  Or government representatives, we the people in the general population of our country as represented by government leaders and judges?

    I suppose the decision will be decided by a judge and a 12 person jury.  Or does our government have some other way of deciding such things?

  3. 13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    I agree.

    I also find it overwrought, substantially inaccurate, and even absurd to characterize the Honor Code, as JD did, as causing "hurt," as "inhumane," as "dismay{ing}" and "disgust{ing}," and so on.

    For pete's sake.  It's been around forever.  It's a matter of public record.  It's congruent with both the teachings of the Church and the broader Judeo-Christian consensus regarding sexual ethics and morality.  It's reasonable.  And attending BYU is entirely voluntary.  And there are oodles of alternative schools for those who don't agree with the Honor Code.

    The caustic and emotionalistic calumnies against the Church, the Honor Code, the Law of Chastity, and those who speak in defense of these things are unreasoned and unfair.

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    As I am sure you understand, maybe even better than I understand it, the complaint against BYU and the BYU Honor Code is against the idea that BYU has the right to dictate what BYU deems to be honorable behavior.  BYU considers homosexual behavior to be immoral, and the complainers are arguing that BYU should consider homosexuality to be honorable and acceptable behavior because it is accepted as legal and therefore permitted by the laws of the government.  A government that provide funds to BYU on behalf of BYU students, so the complainers are saying that since the government says homosexual behavior is okay, then BYU should also say it is okay.  That is their argument, as I understand it.  The complainers want the government to decide what is permitted and what is not, rather than BYU making that decision, and so now we have this pending court case.  And so, guess what, who do you think is going to decide this now?  The government, or BYU?  With lawyers on both sides of the aisle.

  4. 2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    Yep.  You're a regular Top Ten List of Logical Fallacies today.  Appeal to Shame.  Appeal to Guilt.  Appeal to Emotion.  Poisoning the Well.  Argumentum as Populum.  Appeal to Fear.

    "Whatever," indeed.

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    as if jk today is different today than he is on any and every other day.  please.  we are what we are every day of our lives.  nothing new to see here, folks.  just more of our usual entertainment.

  5. 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

    I'm not ridiculing. On purely "logical" grounds, you're probably on fairly solid ground, but I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy. 

    The whole point of having an Honor Code stipulating what is and is not considered acceptable and honorable behavior is to point out what is and is not acceptable and honorable.  Are you advocating for an "everything is good and honorable" approach?

     

  6. 1 minute ago, OGHoosier said:

    Fair enough, I'm a museum geek so I'd really want to see them but I'm also not so sure the events of mortal life will loom as large in my mind when I'm, you know, exalted and extremely busy fulfilling the measure of my creation. I don't think "the same sociality that exists among us here will exist among us there" means that our attitudes about everything will be the same in the light of heaven. 

    Nonetheless, I'd like for it to be there, so here's hoping you're right. Keep on keeping on. 

    When you and your wife are raising your children in your mansion above I'm sure you'll still want to go out on some family excursions, sometimes, rather than always staying cooped up in your mansion.  And if there were no museums I'm sure I would not be the only person to want to create some, at which point I and some others would then go look and find some things to put in them.  We'll figure out entrance requirements later if there are still some details that will still need to be worked out.

  7. 41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

    Crucio!

    Ouch! Please try to be more careful.

    Harry Potter Crucio
     
    The Cruciatus Curse (Crucio), also known as the Torture Curse, was a tool of the Dark Arts and one of the three Unforgivable Curses. It was one of the most powerful and sinister spells known to Wizardkind. When cast successfully the curse inflicted intense, excruciating pain on the victim.
    Effect: Excruciating pain, insanity if victim is su...
    Incantation: Crucio; (KROO-see-oh)
    Type: Curse
     
  8. 16 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

    Not sure how to respond to this tbh so I'm just gonna play the straight man. 

    I believe that heaven (the celestial, the place where God dwells, the eternal abode of the sanctified and exalted) is a real place with real buildings and people and stuff. But I also know that a ton of the Revelation is super figurative and so I don't consider John's seeing the ark in heaven as a slam-dunk demonstration that it is in heaven in material reality. It could be but I don't see any particular reason for it to be as I don't think God is super sentimental about material objects. The plates and the sword of Laban had a role as witnessing artifacts so God maintaining them in heaven makes sense. The ark, maybe makes a little less sense, but then again I'm in no position to say what should or should not make sense to God. So the real ark could have been taken from Babylon to heaven, or even from Jerusalem to heaven, but I don't think we've got enough evidence either way. 

     

    Super sentimental?  No, I don't either.  Just regular sentimental, in my view.  And I think he knows most of us are at least a little bit sentimental too and will want to see those things, someday.  In some nice museum, somewhere.  From earth to heaven, and then from heaven to earth.  Something like what we have at the temple square in Salt Lake City, Utah, right now, if not in an even nicer building or collection of buildings with lots of nice tall trees and big bushes and pretty flowers.  We have and will have a lot of things that we will keep around forever.

  9. 13 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

    John saw the Ark in heaven in Revelation 11:19 but whether that's the actual Ark or a symbolic representation is not known. 

    I know.  John saw the real ark, in his vision.  The church keeps all of the really cool stuff up there.  The ark, the original golden plates of the book of Mormon, and the original stone tablets with the 10 commandments that God gave to Moses, the second time, after Moses broke the first set.  The sword of Laban and some candle sticks and a lot of other really cool stuff too.  Heaven is a real place with real buildings and all kinds of good things in those buildings.  And real plants outside of those buildings too.

    Just ask me the next time you don't know something.

  10. ...and that's a reference to the ordinary pain of being crucified on a cross, for anyone who has ever been crucified on a cross.  The 2 criminals who were hung on both sides of Jesus, for example. 

    I'm sure Jesus felt that ordinary amount of pain too, but I think he probably suffered more than that ordinary amount because I think he was probably still feeling the pain from all of our sins as he hung on that cross too.

  11. 16 hours ago, Teancum said:

    Can't the demands of justice be met by the truly penitent?  I don't demand death from my children if they commit perceived offenses against me.

    Satisfying the demands of justice involves restoring things to the way they should be and would be if there had never been a violation of justice.  Say for example that you tell your children not to throw rocks through windows in people's houses and then later one of them chooses to do that anyway, in violation of what you had told them to not do.  A neighbor's house, while the family who lived there was having dinner at the dining room table, with the rock landing on the table.  Justice would demand that the window of the house be restored to the way it was before the window was broken, as unbroken again, as well as the restoration of peace to that house and the people who were disturbed by the rock that was thrown by one of your children.  So no, death would not solve that problem so death would not be the solution.

    What would you do though if for example one of your children introduced death to a world?  When before that everyone there was immortal,. How would you solve that problem? You would need to figure out some way to restore immortal life to all who lost it and became mortal.  A probable perpetual number of people who were later born to the first who became mortal, and any who are still yet to be born..  Looks to me like you would need some kind of wonderful, charitable, immortal person to solve that problem.  Do you have anyone who would be willing to help in mind ?

  12. 1 minute ago, ttribe said:

    Unfortunately, 'a matter of semantics' doesn't quite capture the discussion.  If you go back and look at my comments on this subject, I believe it is very evident what I consider to be a natural law versus spiritual laws regarding the concept of 'sin.'  It continues to be my assertion that there is no 'sin' which results in a violation of a natural law.  For example, disobedience to the Word of Wisdom does not result in the earth spinning off its axis.  The consequences of 'sin' are either: 1) imposed by humans or a Diety; or 2), societal.  It may follow that a person loses his or her Temple Recommend as a result of disobedience, but nature has no reaction to that event.

    Try considering each person as an entity of nature where each person's outcome is a consequence of his or her choices and any assistance he or she received from some other person(s).

    So while the universe will go along and get along just fine regardless of what kind of person you turn out to be, YOU will be a consequence of your own actions combined with any help you received from other people.

  13. 1 minute ago, california boy said:

    I am not sure exactly what post you are referring to.  But I will ask you this.  Since this issue came up, how many members objected to gay marriages being compared to pedophiles?

    And over the years when a LGBT thread starts, how many times have gay relationships been compared to pedophiles, beastiality, and other disgusting behaviors?

    Just a side note to say comparing something to some other thing(s) isn't an indication that all things compared are equal.   Something can be compared to some other thing(s) while saying it is better than those other things, even if all are said to be bad.

  14. 4 minutes ago, california boy said:

    Just what is a civil response to being compared to a child rapist

    The same response you would use when someone said anything else you did not agree with. 

    I disagree with you, I don't believe it is a valid comparison, and I will go so far as to say it is not. Further, I think you are wrong and unenlightened on this issue, and I believe God would disagree with you, too.

    Feel free to cut and paste that anywhere anytime someone says something you do not agree with.  You can even edit it to suit your own personal preference for speech.  And just let me know if you can think of anything else I can say to help you.

  15. 11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

    I suppose one might associate gravity with drag because gravity affects movement, and movement through a medium (such as a thin gas) causes friction and drag. It doesn't necessarily hurt anything to think that way. It might in some circumstances lead one to incorrect conclusions, however. I don't know that it will do so in this conversation, however.

    But imagine a bullet fired in the earth's atmosphere, horizontal to the surface. It is slowed and heated by its passage through the atmosphere, and this is called drag. It is irrespective of gravity. Gravity alters the vector of the bullet's travel, but doesn't cause the drag. Drag is the frictional interaction between the material of the bullet and the material of the atmosphere.

    Or imagine a spherical chunk of iron ten feet in diameter that is a billion light-years from any other solid body, and it is moving through a nebular cloud that is as dense as the solar wind coming off the sun. There is drag on the chunk of iron caused by its movement through the cloud, though there is no gravity present, and it affects its velocity and direction of that travel (though very very little).

     

    I am thinking gravity may be and probably is present everywhere, even in space which you may think has no gravity.  Gravity on planets as they orbit their sun, gravity on suns as they orbit their galaxy, gravity in galaxies as they orbit each other or are affected by other gravitational fields, etc.  That is the way I understand objects affecting the movements of other objects.  An object that may seem to be still, not moving in space, is actually moving in some gravitational field, by my understanding.  So when something runs into something else or is affected by some other matter, the effect of that collision will be affected by that gravitational field of all of the objects in movement, as I understand things to be moving.

  16. 9 minutes ago, california boy said:

    I am getting the idea that there is little tolerance or respect for a different point of view 

    I think people should be as nice as they can be even when they disagree with other people.  And the fact that people often disagree with other people show there is often a different point of view.  Like it or not.  Agree with it or not.  Calling it right or not.

  17. 2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

    I love you man, you crack me the hell up!

    I still love your attitude.  And attitudes are what I notice most when I notice anyone saying anything.  Regardless of what their name is or how that person is judged by other people.

  18. 20 minutes ago, california boy said:

    I took it as a suggestion. Do you think it would help?

    If not just exactly what  would you suggest as an approach to persuade Mormons to quit comparing gay marriages to pedophiles and other derogatory comparisons.  This has been going on for years. I am all ears. 

    I see the problem as a dilemma because we see the only "right" way for people to marry is for a male to marry a female.  Which means any other way than that way is some kind of "wrong" way to marry, even if some "wrong" way is legally authorized.

  19. 10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

    Not when you have been hearing the same kind of special for years. It gets really old.

    I realize I sound really mean here, but in all sincerity, I think he/she is an ex-Mormon having fun by trying to make members look stupid. I have no patience for that.

    lol.  No, I am as true blue as we "Mormons" come.  And since all of us "Mormons" believe we are God by being the same kind of being as God our Father, with us as his children being reproductions of himself and his wife or wives, yes, in fact, we are God.

×
×
  • Create New...