Heavenguard

Really, the Obama hate is becoming distasteful and this brings it to the edge of "anti"-like behaviour, if not already there. There's a whole square month before he comes into power, how could you possibly cast him as the one moving this forward? I'm not pro-Obama, but neither am I against him. I'm just saying you shouldn't blindly throw hate at a man.

It's possible that they did not become American citizens, thus making them not American. Or that they'd changed their citizenship to Indian. Possible.

I met a guy, and I liked him pretty much right off the bat. We never had an official dating relationship, but we'd gotten very close and we both knew of each other's feelings about four months after we'd become friends. There came the time I knew I wanted to love him, which took even me by surprise, because I never thought I'd go for his "type". Decided that it would be best to not go that route, though. Broke my heart, it did.

I'd like to open the door here to the topic of transgenders, since we're talking about gender choice. We have people who are transgendered, and to the extreme, transsexuals who describe their experiences as being trapped in the wrong (gender of) body. Some people undergo the surgery to change themselves, and the others grapple with it for the remainder of their lives because of the taboo of it. This presents quite an interesting notion, given the light of this conversation. I think it would only make sense that we were sexual (gendered) creatures in the pre-existence, since we are in this mortal life, and continue to be so in our after-lives. After all, we had spirit bodies, not spirit spirits, right? So there are two possibilities here, and it brings very different ways of thinking. No choice: we are as we were in the pre-existence. Was a mistake made somewhere between the pre-existent life and this one? Or the person had the same inner conflict in the previous life (and perhaps the next one as well) Choice: we get to choose what gender to be. It would seem someone would choose to be the "opposite" gender because they wanted to be so (while in pre-existence), and so should be satisfied in this life. Or did those people make a mistake, and are their own source of their misery? This would also make it morally acceptable, perhaps even rightful? for someone to choose to have sex assignment surgery, as it is one's own choice, and does not defy God's nature.

Thanks, MaioCampo. The site was down when I Googled earlier (and so assumed it just expired), but it's up again.

Is there someplace I could read this text online? I've tried looking on lds.org and searching Google to no avail. (Although I find I generally do very poorly at trying to find stuff on lds.org.) Thanks :)

Neither am I! But here's a great bunch of people to hang around with if I've ever seen one.

Today I was given a document to layout and print, and a co-worker from IT came by my office and saw me correcting grammatical errors. He told me it wasn't a part of my job, to which I replied "I don't make bad work!"

People who sit on the fence in this life aren't sure if God (or a god) exists, or they believe that there is a God, but he's so far removed that it's not something that matters to them. If there is a pre-existence in which we were conscious and aware, then you couldn't possibly not believe that God doesn't exist, or that he's someone/something that's far removed from you. You'd either have to be with God or not. What HoosierGuy said in his first post got me thinking a little, though: That much makes sense, thus far. But to think about what it means... those that rebelled against God don't have a chance to live this mortal life, fine. But those who were with God get to live this mortal life and are then given another (very great, more probably than not) chance to run against him. It seems like the good guys get two chances to be good, or once to be good and once to be bad, but the bad guys only get one chance to be bad. It's ... a very strange thought.

Knowing something is being aware of something that is a fact. Those aren't things you know, but rather things you have faith in. You can't know that you will inhale after you exhale, and you can't know that your heart will continue to beat through the night. No matter how minuscule the possibility, you can choke, your heart may fail (it happens)... But you have faith that you will continue in the way that has been proven reliable thus far, and that the unfortunate possibilities will not befall you. In the same way, you can't know that there is a Mother, but you can have faith that there is. Knowing something for yourself is having faith in something. It is a different know than knowing, for example, knowing that I am thirsty, or that I went to work this morning (barring Descartes).

I asked the same question a while ago. Personally, I don't subscribe to the belief, but I did enjoy the discussion around it: http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/12241-marriage.html

Bytor, he's not arguing that the Bishop would (or not) be accountable for the wrong counsel, but whether or not you are accountable for the action you took after his counsel. SeattleTruthSeeker, your example necessitates that your boss definitively knows better than you do, and his way is the absolute most efficient (and therefore, for this purpose, the right) way. I can give examples where I know better than the President of where I work, believe you me. (*Sigh* Some of the requests I get in ... oy.) What KristofferUmfrey is asking is whether or not we believe that the church leaders (I note he didn't say Prophet) definitively know better, and their ways are absolutely the right way(s).

My pastor is someone I know I can talk to when I have problems, but I am also very aware of his humanity and limitations. I truly don't believe anyone gets it right all the time, even if you want to say, for example, that Papal Infallacy only pertains to matters on faith. (And similar/parallel to the Prophet and the LDS church.) Even Aaron's sons, who had God RIGHT THERE, in their own physical presence, seeing him with their own eyes, got it wrong.

Please correct any flaws in my logic or understanding of LDS teaching: My conjecture is that the idea of a Heavenly Mother is required by LDS doctrine, because it is doctrine that an exalted couple can have children after this life. If we are the spiritual children of God, then he must have a wife with which he had us, his children. Personally, though, it seems like the wrong direction for the conclusion to be made. That is, I think it makes more sense that a doctrine concerning a Heavenly Mother would lead to a conclusion about eternal increase, rather than eternal increase leading to the conclusion of a Heavenly Mother. But my way may not be the way the conclusion was derived, anyway, so ... meh. However, it seems to me that we would be created in God and Heavenly Mother's images, male and female (respectively, of course ) , rather than in God's image, male and female if there is a Heavenly Mother. I do have to say it does seem a little silly for God to see that there was no suitable companion for Adam in the animals, and then create Eve of and for him afterwards if he himself has a wife. I mean ... that's got to be one of the worst wife jokes ever I'd be surprised if he wasn't put in the doghouse for a while for that one!

You can pack them (or one) away in a box and tuck them into a corner in the closet. You might appreciate keeping them in another 20 or 30 years.

While we're talking about rings, here's another for the guys: how offended would you be if your fiancee didn't wear an engagement ring? I only recently started wearing (simple, very simple) necklaces to polish up my workplace look, but I wear no jewelry otherwise. I don't like jewelry. I do not want to wear a ring, especially one topped off or encrusted with shiny diamonds. I just hate being showy.

I'm the kind that doesn't really care about Christmases and birthdays. I do put up the tree every year only because my mom asks (pesters, rather?) me to. Go to church in the morn, then in the afternoon, the extended family either comes to my house, or we go to an aunt's place for dinner. That's really about it. I suspect when I get my own place, I'll either not have a tree, or only have a tiny little dinky desktop one. I do, however, enjoy the occasion to get presents for people :3

Thank you. Yes. Kids' TV is so bad these days that I have these ideas about buying DVDs of shows that are good now, and from when I was a younger kid, and saving them for when I have kids. Avatar: The Last Airbender is a really good one. (Actually, I really just want that one for myself.)

Of the Gospels: Wrong assumption: The author insists upon the gospels being 'inauthentic' and 'untrustworthy' because the writers could not have possibly been eye-witnesses to the events. Whether or not the gospel writers were eye-witnesses has no bearing on their authenticity or inauthenticity - it would simply mean that they were not eye-witnesses to the events. Historians and biographers are more often than not not eye-witnesses. (Sorry for the double negative.) Are their writings inauthentic or invalid? No, they are not, and you can find in libraries (even university ones) around the world history books and biographies of events and people who have long passed before the writers of said books were even born. Everything, then, is hearsay in these books, as the author claims the gospels are. Historians and biographers do their best to piece together the stories of the past by interviewing those who were present (if recent enough), letters people of the day wrote, other records, and even other books written of the same topic. The finished product is considered scholarly if the research was done. The writers of the gospels may not have been eye-witnesses, but their methods are likely to have been very similar to historians' today. Double standard: "We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor." The differences in literary style would point to different authors, especially John, which reads very differently from the other synoptic gospels. Later he speaks of a "literary seam", but conveniently ignores it completely in this case. Matthew and Luke recount stories of Jesus' earlier years, but Mark and John do not. The author says it is impossible for Matthew and Luke to know of Jesus' early days, and so says the books are false. Mark and John, who omit these events, he accuses of being incomplete without these accounts. Furthermore, it is not impossible for people to know of events without being present. The author likes to assert that only eye-witnesses can know the truth of a matter, when in fact most of what we know is not learned from first-hand experience, but rather we are instructed, and accept the claim to be true. (Have you ever been to space and seen pluto for yourself? No, yet you believe it is there.) Ad hominem: "beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath" Baptism is not a bath. Even if the author does not respect it as a religious sacrament, he should at least respect it as a cultural tradition. Instead, he belittles the act to make it Christianity seem less credible. Baptism comes, in fact, ofy a Jewish tradition: the people were baptised when they repented of sins, and truly has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of Christ. The author accuses of the gospel writers of plagiarizing each other. Pulling information from other sources is a perfectly acceptable scholarly practise even by today's standards - if proper citations are given. I truly do not believe that even the academics of the time were sticklers to the extent that they had rules for citation. Yet he uses this argument to say that the gospels are inauthentic and untrustworthy. Following this accusation, that using another's information makes your work untrustworthy, I think everyone who ever finished high school should have their high school certificates pulled from them for any essays written in English, Poli Sci, History, you understand where I'm going with this. Paul/Saul and his letters: Imposes his own assumptions of what the bible should be: None of Paul's writings are meant to be biographical, they were meant to be instructional - how does one live a good Christian life? What does it mean to be a Christian? Instead of looking at the Epistles as they are - letters from a man to his friends, telling them about how he's doing, encouraging them, and giving them instructions - he argues that Paul did not write Jesus' biography. (Which he would not trust anyhow, so I suppose this is also a double standard?) It is completely irrelevant that Paul never met Jesus and that he never wrote about Jesus' life. That would be like saying I was not present at Confederation, therefore what I say about what it means to be Canadian, 141 years later, is not valid. The author does this in other places as well, asserting what someone should have said, and then because they did not, they are wrong. Ad hominem: "the man who, after losing his mind, changed his name to Paul" He didn't even try to hide it here. He says this to discredit everything Paul would have to say right from the beginning, rather than looking at the things that Paul does say. Unless the author is a psychiatric doctor, he has no authority to make this assumption. Paul was actually a very well-spoken and eloquent man. Being a Pharisee, he was also well educated; reading his letters reveals as much. Other Sources: Wrong assumption: The author assumes that Jesus should have been all over the official records of the day. But imagine this: if a man were to appear today and claim to be Jesus (or the Messiah), most of the world would think that he is simply another mad man and ignore him. There are men today who perform all sorts of fantastical demonstrations, and we call them illusionists and magicians, but how much do we really write about them (besides in Entertaiment magazines, which, I'm sure, did not exist then). Yes, Jesus became quite the something of a sensation, but not enough of one in the "right" kind of way to have been kept in "official" records. The Romans killed countless many people, and I doubt they had in place a system like in modern times to keep track of every criminal they executed. Of the Jews, I don't believe many of them were literate. Those who (the Pharisees, the Sadducees) were would not have written about Jesus, as they made them look either like fools, or dishonest men. Jesus exposed the falseness of their righteousness - it would make no sense for them to write of him! Conclusion: Ad hominem: "The Bible shows that this Jesus fellow spoke and taught many absurd and foolish things" True, the things he taught were absurd and foolish of the time when people lived by Eye for an eye. But much of what he taught was forgiveness, love and peace, which are hardly absurd and foolish, rather considered virtues. Logical fallacy (+ ad hominem): "If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, idiotic laws, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice." Yes, but the Bible does not condone these acts, merely records them. A biography of Bill Clinton's life would include a story of infidelity and untruthfulness. Does that mean the book or its author condones it? No, the author merely recorded the events that took place. People, and in many cases not the people of Israel, committing sins has no bearing on Jesus' existence, or even his deity if you want to go that far! Logical fallacy: "Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name of their god." Let me put it this way: "The Quran is a text that supposedly promotes peace and good living. But Muslims use the text pertaining to the jihad to kill and commit war in the name of their god. Therefore, Muhammad did not exist." Since this is an article about the existence (or non-existence of Jesus), the "Muhammad did not exist" is the logical conclusion to those statements, if I were to follow the pattern of this article. However, you can see that it is not a logical conclusion at all. I'm not saying that the author is necessarily wrong, but his (or her) arguments has just as many holes as he claims the Christians do.

I'm confused ... schm.

The general idea of a ghost being the spirit or soul of someone who has died - nope, don't believe it. Why? Because the Bible paints the picture that after you die, you go to one place or the other. (The rich man and Lazarus, Enoch and Elijah went to be with God - skipped death altogether!) I do believe in spirits, however, and that the ones that people believe are the ghosts of their loved ones are truly evil ones up to no good, leading people astray.

I actually read the whole thing, and do have some things to say in response ... however, it will take quite a time to write it. (Obviously the original author of this had much time to write it.) But my very brief summation is that although this initially seems well-written, 1) the author of this has double standards, and thus can never be satisfied, 2) imposes his own expectations on what the bible "should" be (rather than reading it as it is) 3) has logical fallacies, and 4) also includes ad hominem fallacies. I will get to these points later when I have the time to.

I just want to point out that gravitating towards people of similar race or otherwise is different than disliking people of other race (or otherwise). I have and have had friends of many different backgrounds, but my "main" group of close friends are all Chinese. Reason? Not that I dislike other races, I do have friends of them, but because we grew up in a similar culture (specifically, Chinese immigrant parents, but raised in western society), there are a lot of "isms" that we just inherently understand in each other. Particularly the tension that exists within the family structure because our parents carry the traditional Chinese mindset of how a family should be, how kids should be, etc with them, while we, their children, have more liberal (and in our parents' minds, rebellious) ideas. It's not a race thing at all, we often get frustrated with trying to communicate some of our friends who grew up in Hong Kong because the set of values and way of thinking is different there, and we just don't "get" each other. In fact, it's easier for me to have conversations about things with people of other cultures, but who grew up in the same western society and mindset, than with someone that is Asian, but grew up with the eastern mindsets.

To answer the main point, I don't think so. Characters are not people. They are made up representations of an idea of a person. They resemble people, but are not people, and only exist intangibly as ideas. Although you can metaphorically kill an idea, you can't really, literally, kill an idea. I think GTA pushes the envelope, though, not because it's violent, but the entire premise glorifies organized crime, and along the way drinking (not that I don't drink, but not to drunkenness), drugs, "loose" relationships, etc. That said, Medal Gear Solid 4 was awesome fun. I played it three times through, back to back to back. Right now I'm playing Star Wars Unleashed, which is basically a hack and slash, but with some really cool moves mixed in (force, thank you). Would I ever hurt anybody? Not while I'm of sound mind. I know the difference between right and wrong, and fantasy and reality, and I am not driven by the games I play - they are of entertainment only and do not have enough of a grip on me to influence how I think and behave. Video games don't make people violent. Kids who do learn from violent video games did not learn enough from their parents.

Why is there flying?