unixknight

Does eating it in brownies somehow alter the argument? ...isn't that the whole point of the matching neuroreceptors you referenced earlier? That they probably should have stayed home.

I tried to resist doing this. Let that be shown in the record. That remark was condescending and uncalled for. Source, please. Source, please. You're asserting a trait in human physiology that would serve absolutely no other purpose than to respond to a chemical compound found in this plant. Granted, with the caveat that we don't always know what that purpose is, and can be mistaken about it. Irrelevant, considering it doesn't guarantee that the temptation in question doesn't, in fact, come from the Adversary. Your dichotomy is false, because your premises do not enforce only two possible conclusions. By your reasoning, Virtually any vice can be justified. Watch as I use your own logic to justify cheating on my wife: Point #1: I am sexually compatible with any human female, by the way my body is designed. Point#2: Despite being married, I am still physically capable of sexual intercourse with any female. This did not change when I married my wife. Point#3: there is an express and good purpose underlying everything Heavenly Father does. Point #4: God does not tempt man, but only allows the adversary to do so. Therefore, if I exercise my ability to engage in a pleasurable, sexual encounter with a women other than my wife, then either God intended for me to do this, or it's an oversight on His part. Now, I'm betting you wouldn't agree with that conclusion, so there must be other possible explanations for this, mustn't there? You'll be stoned in the Celestial Room, and tell us this because you expect it to impress us. A little part of me just died.

Very simple. We never wear the same set of clothing twice. This has the advantage of not only avoiding laundry chores, but it also keeps us up to the bleeding edge of modern fashion. Our old clothes are used as rags, donated to the poor, left in the street to look as if the wearer has vanished to perform amusing little Rapture gags, etc. Of course, by not having to store dirty clothing, we save on dresser space, since at any given moment we really only need about a week's supply of fresh clothing. As a result, each bedroom has more floor space for obscenely large beds, making king size mattresses look like a crib mattress. We do this so that the beds may serve as trampolines on rainy days after hours when labor laws forbid us to make the household servant staff work overtime to set up the pagoda. I suppose we could make the servants do the laundry, but as I said labor laws prohibit forcing them to handle potentially biohazardous materials, not to mention, again, the extra hours. And, of course, that also would put me in the uncomfortable position of having to explain all the bloodstains on my clothing that I acquire, owing to my night job as a Government assassin. (The bedrooms in my home are often carpeted in dirty clothes so I have no useful advice, so I thought I'd offer an attempt at humor instead...)

No objections from the players on the server. Send me a PM with your Minecraft name and I'll add you to our whitelist.

Ahhh ok. I'd never heard of that before!

Our server is a small, friendly community, mostly LDS, so it's family friendly. Normally we only have people on who we know in person, but exceptions have been made. I can just quickly check with some of the other players to make sure they're cool with bringing in new players, then let you know. The only caveat is that our server hardware is a bit aged so sometimes things lag when a bunch of people are on at once. However, hardware upgrades are in the pipeline so it won't be an issue much longer. I have no idea what pinning is, but as long as it doesn't mean "Hack your server and delete the project" then sure, go ahead!

My son and I mainly are the ones who work together on our server... building infrastructure and facilities for all members of the server. This Temple is really the first project where I've invited our gaming club at large to jump in and participate. It's only just been imported into our server from my private solo server, so nobody's done anything with it yet, but I'm hoping once they do, the project will be finished fast.

01. Who do you have on speed dial? Nobody 02. How many people live in your house? 4 03. What's the most bizarre thing you've ever eaten? A tentacle 04. When was the last time you cried tears of joy? When my last son was born. 05. What's the longest trip (travel time in one shot) that you've ever gone on? Denver. 19 hrs. 06. Who is the last person you had a disagreement with? My self 07. How would you describe yourself in one word? Weird 08. How many friends do you have on Facebook? 0 09. How tall are you? 6'0" 10. What would you do with a pot of unlimited gold? Make absolutely certain the Government never found out about it

Thanks for the warm fuzzies :) Actually I forgot to mention that, as it's only a model and not to serve a normal Temple purpose in the Minecraft "world" the interior will not be modeled after the real thing. I plan to either leave it open and hollow, to be viewed from the outside only, or put something inside like Scripture verses or something worth looking at. Haven't decided which yet.

My gaming club is about 50% LDS and we have our own Minecraft server. We've been cooking up a little project. It's about 50% complete... East view: http://www.ldsknights.org/image/image_gallery?uuid=2073d5cc-554d-4205-a305-cf3093d117c0&groupId=10136&t=1342822091969 Lots of work left to be done... http://www.ldsknights.org/image/image_gallery?uuid=2ca102ec-cfe7-41cb-ab64-2897ccf3f09e&groupId=10136&t=1342822091990 Any other Minecraft builders out there?

Could be, and when I was first on Internet forums and arguing with people, I was probably as bad as anyone about being so consumed with getting my own point across that I failed to value the other person's. So I like to think I've learned to be more careful about that, and take the time to truly understand what they're saying, if for no other reason than it's embarrassing to be caught talking out of one's backside when trying to wrestle for the moral high ground. The problem is that while it led to a shift in my approach, it didn't mean others were shifting theirs, so now I'm picky about who I'll argue with. If it turns into a friendly, dynamic debate then I'm all in. I've had the pleasure of participating in a few with some Protestant brethren in recent weeks :)

For me, the answer is that at some point it doesn't matter whether it's willful or not. If a person either is unable or unwilling to respond to your posts as written, then in no case will make any progress by continuing to try to make them. At some point you just have to accept that your blood pressure is more important than getting this person to see your point. As to when, exactly, that point is reached... I suppose it's on a case by case basis, but for me usually I'll attempt to rephrase what I said once, maybe twice. It's certainly possible that I didn't phrase myself well. After that, if they still seem to be resisting my actual point, then it's time to walk away.

Thank you very much! I understand now. The site I mentioned is a Protestant site so this info won't do them much good, but I am much edified and I appreciate it. :)

I've been involved in an interesting discussion on another forum, discussing repentance. One person brought up Hebrews 6:4-6 which seems to suggest that those who have become good, spiritual saints who subsequently fall away cannot be redeemed. I find that very difficult to accept at first glance. We know there are certain irredeemable sins, like denying the Holy Ghost, but never have I heard that a person who falls away cannot come back. I think maybe what Paul was getting at here wasn't so much that a person becomes irredeemable, but rather that if, having reached the spiritual heights they've reached, they still manage to fall away, then the likelihood that they will repent of their on choice is negligible. Thoughts?

Yeah I know.. I just meant that I never had trouble washing it out. Maybe the paint formula has changed over the years? I haven't been since about 2001.

I used to play paintball and I always wore them, but that was mainly because I just really WANTED to. It's been awhile so maybe the formula in the paint has changed, but I never had any trouble washing it out of my clothes, so I'm a little confused about why stains would be an issue.

Aye!

Yep, the car still has plugs, and normally they get replaced every 30,000 miles. If the car has platinum plugs they last longer, usually 45,000 to 60,000 miles but spark plugs are cheap, so it certainly doesn't hurt to replace them at 30,000 miles. If you're worried about what stuff the car really needs and what doesn't when it comes to the stuff they try and push on you, the most reliable guide is your owner's manual maintenance schedule. If you don't have the original owner's manual you should be able to order one through your local Toyota dealer. If you follow that you'll be fine, since the manufacturer has a vested interest in giving you good information to avoid warranty claims! Especially be aware when you go to a shop that offers very low price oil changes. They take a loss on the oil change, but the point is to get your car into the shop so they can try and sell you other work. This can be mutually beneficial; they can make you aware of problems you might not have known about, and they get the opportunity to do business with you. It really can be win/win. What you want to be cautious of is being sold stuff you don't really need. Additives are very profitable for them because they can sell you an expensive chemical product and call it "maintenance service" so they can charge you $30 for a mechanic to pour a can of product into your engine/fuel tank/cooling system/whatever. Oh, and this is my personal pet peeve because when I was a tech, one of my specializations was air conditioning systems: A properly functioning Air Conditioning system DOES NOT NEED TO BE RECHARGED AS A MAINTENANCE ITEM. Period. Federal law requires that automotive air conditioning systems be 100% sealed against leakage, and refrigerant is not consumed in the air conditioning process. A couple of years ago (after I became a software developer) a co-worker of mine and I had the following conversation: Co-worker: I need to leave early today to get my A/C recharged. Me: Oh? It's got a leak? Co-worker: No... I just have to take it in to get recharged each year. Me: Er... if you have to have it recharged, it's leaking somewhere. Co-worker: No.. .my mechanic explained to me it just need regular recharging. Me: Um... A/C systems NEVER need recharging unless they're malfunctioning. Co-worker: Well my mechanic wouldn't lie to me. Me: Well he's the one making money recharging it each year. Co-worker (angrily): Well he knows what he's doing and if he says it needs recharging it needs recharging. Me:

Ok, this is my area of expertise. (Well, was. Before I was a computer nerd, I was an ASE Certified Master Auto Technician so if anybody argues with me on this I will take it personally. You have been warned. ) What's going in your car now? Most small cars like that Corolla recommend SAE 5W-30 for their engines. That's for new engines. In an engine with 145,000 miles on it I'd suggest getting something thicker, like SAE 10W-30 or maybe 10W-40. I'm currently driving a 1993 Saturn with about 230,000 miles on it and I put in SAE 10W-30 but in the Summer months I sometimes go to 10W-40 depending. Don't waste your money on additives or on synthetic oil. They like to plug synthetic oil as being really awesome for your engine but the truth is that a good quality "traditional" type oil is just fine. (Don't argue with me on this. I'm telling you as an industry insider. I don't care what uncle Phil said or what the Shadetree Mechanic said on TV, or what your trusted Dealership service writer told you. Don't believe me? Then ask yourself why, despite promises of longer oil utility, the recommended service interval for your car doesn't change just because you're using synthetic oil.) I don't know exactly what you mean by "clacking" but in an engine that old, I'd expect to hear the valves tapping. This can usually be remedied by using the heavier oil I mentioned above. Valve tapping isn't necessarily an indicator of a serious problem and it is pretty common on engines with a lot of miles on them. Older cars had adjustable valves that could be made to eliminate that kind of tapping, but that's rare these days, as most valves are hydraulic. (Read: "self adjusting") If heavier oil doesn't remedy it then the problem may be something like severely worn valves, piston slap or worn bearings. If that's the case, and adding some kind of oil additive makes it go away, then you're only hastening the eventual demise of your engine because additives like that tend to leave behind residues and thick sludge that can clog oil pumps, oil filters and even oil galleries and passages. That is not good news for your engine. When I was fixing cars for a Nissan dealership I absolutely never recommended these kinds of additives. If customers insisted on buying them I'd put them in the car, but that's usually because I'd hear "My brother-in-law who usually takes care of my car told me I really needed this $20 oil additive with every oil change because he uses it in all his cars..." and woe unto the mechanic who disputes the word of the brother-in-law... ...or Uncle Phil... ...or the Shadetree Mechanic...

Problem is more and more we're seeing people being punished for using them. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

It seems that in Maryland, the State Police have been told to step up their traffic citations by a factor of 10. No, not 10 additional tickets, but to multiply their current quote by 10. ...to cover a state budget shortfall related to a recent embezzlement fiasco. Anybody who tells you traffic tickets are about safety and not revenue is either being naive or works for the police department. In some places, red light cameras are being removed because they're actually working, making intersections safer and thus reducing revenue. An example I suppose a few accidents a year are a small price to pay to make sure lawmakers can keep their spending up.

No matter how good a definition is of a bully, this is the most blindingly stupid thing I've heard of in recent memory. ...well, second stupidest. How many more lists shall we create for pigeonholing people so we can feel like we're better than they are? This is especially bad because it marks someone because of mistakes made during their childhood... Does it really make sense to deny someone a job when they're 25 because they were a mean kid when they were 12? Does it? Does it even make sense for that kind of information to be gathered and made available? Do we value each other's privacy now so little that we joyfully start adding people to various "bad person" lists so we can feel superior and play at being fine, responsible citizens? "Heh I'm a completely worthless drain on society, but I'm still superior because at least I'm not on BULLYcheck/sex offender list/dangerous dog list/no-fly list/wrote-a-bad-check-list/too-many-DUIs-so-I-have-to-have-special-license-plates-list..."

This isn't about child molestation, "gay contagion" or homophobia. Those are all red herrings used by both sides because there's no way to come to an understanding on the core issue. The core issue is that any scout leader is in a position where he must offer moral guidance and set an example for the scouts that is consistent with the morality and beliefs of the BSA as well as the sponsoring organization. An openly homosexual man would thus be put in a position of a moral conflict. In order to perform his duty to the moral expectations of the BSA, he would have to lie about who he is. A lie is, itself, a morally bad thing and so the result is a massive distraction to the program, exactly as they state it. It's unfortunate that the political climate in this country has reached a stage where the BSA itself has become either a pawn or a target depending on the agenda being pushed. The BSA program has, for decades, been an excellent tool for teaching young men skills, friendship, fellowship and pride. Now, all that is at risk of being tossed out as it becomes yet another target for a culture that no longer seems to value morality as traditionally held. Do I think a gay man could be a good scout leader? Sure, why not? But would I endorse bringing in gay leaders? No. It puts them in an awkward and conflicting position, not because they're "icky" or "contagious" but because it asks of them something that can't be asked and remain consistent with the very morality the BSA is supposed to value. I used to be a Webelos Den Leader (as my calling at Church), so I know of what I speak.

Not odd at all. Frankly, I'm a little dismayed that this is being discussed. (The part about the different disciplinary actions for the different people, not the sidetrack about what adultery is.) We're not qualified to form an opinion on what went on in a private meeting, in private prayer, between people who hold the details in confidence. I don't know why 2 people got different responses for similar behavior and I don't care. The details are not for us to know. It's enough that Church discipline is about helping individuals to return to the Path, and not a "one size fits all" solution. "Well, Brother Jones... it seems you're very repentant and sincere in your desire to return, but last year we excommunicated a guy for doing the same thing you did and, well we wouldn't want to look inconsistent..." I, for one, am glad things aren't that way, and I don't see the value in armchair quarterbacking the decisions of Church authorities.

When I originally heard about this it was here in this article and there's definitely only one side of the story being told there. I did a google search on this because I wanted to read it from other points of view. Ironically, it was a Huffington Post editorial that revealed some interesting details not found in the MSNBC article linked to above. We probably won't ever hear Fr. Guarnizo's side of the story right from him, but cross-referencing sources does reveal some details that allow us to look at this in a more informed way. There's 3 items worth looking at more closely. -The refusal to give Communion -The "failure" to grant absolution before the service -Leaving during the service The Refusal of Communion ------------------------- According to the MSNBC article: Interesting. The article tells us she'd been in this homosexual relationship for 20 years. How is it possible that she's been able to receive Communion until now? For the answer, we look at the HP article. (emphasis mine) Interesting. So for those who aren't so familiar with the whole Catholic Communion thing, here's how it works: If you're not in a "state of Grace" you're not supposed to receive it. Being in a state of Grace means you have no major sins on your conscience, and theoretically if you got hit by a bus and died right that moment, you'd go to Heaven. If a Catholic has major sin on his/her conscience then they aren't even supposed to present themselves to receive the Eucharist (the bread). The Catholic Church holds homosexual behavior to be a mortal sin. That's the kind of sin that send you straight to Hell when you die if you don't repent of it. That's the kind of thing that is grounds for Excommunication. That's a BIG DEAL, folks. If Barbara was a practicing Catholic then she should have known better. Whether you agree or disagree with Catholic doctrine or procedure, that's how they do things, and she knew this. Father Guarnizo did exactly what he was supposed to do in refusing her the Communion. In fact, he was probably surprised she even came up to receive it. This also reveals another subtle element to the story. If she just told him about her relationship that day, then that means that all these years she was coming up for Communion at Mass, she was doing so under a false pretense. How do you suppose Fr. Guarnizo felt at that moment? Apparently he's known the family for quite some time. He probably felt shocked and betrayed. I don't think I can expect him to be 100% on top of his game after a bomb like that got dropped in his lap. The "failure" to grant absolution before the service ------------------------------------------------ From the HP article: Hold on. "He failed?" Again, for those unfamiliar with how Catholic penance works: When the confessor wants to receive absolution (forgiveness) for their sin, they meet privately with the priest. They confess their sins and admit their wrongs. They do this with an attitude of repentance. When the priest grants absolution, it's done for someone who has a sincere desire to change and to do their very best not to sin again. Now, with that in mind, please re-read the above quote. Does Ms. Johnson sound repentant? Does she sound like she was ready to admit she was sinning against God and wanted to change? No? Then why the *(%^@#%^ would she expect absolution? I'm really serious about this. Both of these articles play Ms. Johnson up to be a committed and genuine Catholic, and yet just from that little bit we see enough to cast some very serious doubts on her understanding of Catholic doctrine or her desire to be a sincere part of it. Not to mention she apparently figured Fr. Guarnizo should have been more than happy to slap some duct tape on her spiritual problems and roll. That ain't how it works, folks. His ecclesiastic responsibility was to counsel her to meet with him in private at some point and discuss the situation further. We don't know whether he did so or not. Leaving during the service ------------------------- I'll start by saying I don't know why he left, but I found an interesting little tidbit in the HP article. Take a second to let that sink in. Fr. Guarnizo was officiating this Mass. That means he was in charge. He made the judgment call to deny her Communion. Apparently, one of the Deacons in the Mass took it upon himself to override that call and give her Communion anyway. Was this appropriate? Could it be that Fr. Guarnizo left the Mass because of this? I don't know if he did or didn't, this is only speculation, but it seems to me that he may have felt angry at this. Now, I believe that when a priest is in a spiritual or emotional state that makes him unfit to conduct Mass, he is supposed to remove himself from that role. An angry priest, undermined by his fellow celebrant and probably still reeling from the shocking news he felt that morning may very well have decided he was emotionally unfit to finish officiating the Mass and left. Heck, the HP article tells us he left the moment Ms. Johnson started her eulogy (The MSNBC article says he left in the middle.) Maybe there was a moral conflict with someone in that state of sin speaking during Mass and his conscience was struggling with it. I don't know. Again, not sure if that's what happened, but I find it to be plausible. Apparently he didn't go to the burial because he had a migraine. A lie? Maybe. Or maybe he really did have one. After the above incidents, I probably would. Am I saying he was perfect? No. Admonishing her during Communion was probably not appropriate. That stuff is supposed to take place privately, but again, we're only getting one side of the story. Even the two articles we're using here don't quite agree on exactly what he said to her. Either way, the Archdiocese issued an apology for Fr. Guarnizo's rudeness, which is probably more about P.R. than anything else, but what I find annoying is this (from the MSNBC article): An apology and removing him. Is this an example of Ms. Johnson's loving forgiveness? We see this a lot... an apology so they can have their moral validation and then to destroy the person so they can have their pound of flesh. This next part almost made me gag: There's so many things wrong with that quote I'm not sure where to begin, so I leave it to you to decide.