Vort

When bodybuilders own dogs:

Three possible answers: Genesis 7:2-3"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." Now, how you can take animals "by sevens" by taking "the male and his female", I've never quite understood. Nevertheless, you have an overabundance of "clean" (i.e. edible) animals. If you aren't concerned about genetic narrowing, that might give you some good eats, at least for a couple of days. Isaiah 7:11"And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." The predators put those sharp, pointed, flesh-ripping teeth to good use by going vegetarian. Madagascar-ish broken Aesop fish-eating.

Wow. I'm disappointed to hear that, Traveler. Imagine the disgust that would be generated by someone offering the opinion, "I think that Nigerians (or Mexicans, or Greeks, or Mongolians) are the ugliest people in the world." Is there a person on this list that would not be appalled at such a proclamation? Sometimes, it's better to keep your opinions to yourself -- as I keep having to relearn. In any case, I certainly won't be volunteering my own dear, beloved, and thoroughly American family up for your viewing judgment. Nor do I care to hear your opinions about the appearance of our Church's general leadership, surely some of the most beautiful (in any meaningful sense) people on the earth, and the great majority of whom are Americans.

I like you. :) Lots of Mormons abstain from caffeinated soda. I should be one of them, because it gives me terrible headaches...but I confess to downing more Mountain Deaths than I ought. I don't know of any Mormons that abstain from soda pop altogether, but surely some of us are smart enough to do so. As for dancing...I abstain from that only because I don't have time to ballroom dance with my wife and I can't stand "boogie dancing". In any case, the National Champion BYU Ballroom Dance Team will be disappointed to find out that they aren't supposed to dance. Here is my advice, in no particular order and, perhaps, of no particular value -- remember, I'm just some random guy on the internet: Honor your father and your mother. Show them you love them and value their counsel, in word and in deed.Honoring your parents does not mean refusing to join an organization you believe to be true and of divine origin.Don't refuse to join the Church because you're afraid of being cut off financially. Remember the teachings of Jesus to the rich young man.On the other hand, don't join the Church out of sheer rebellion or to demonstrate your independence. Join the Church because you believe it to be the kingdom of God on earth, and you feel you have received a testimony (or, in other words, a revelation from God) that tells you so.Read, study, ponder, pray.Seek to educate your family about things Mormon. You don't have to lecture or make a big production out of it. Just let them know the truth about things.Latter-day Saints are widely misunderstood; however, we are certainly not the only people that are misunderstood. Avoid adopting a "persecution mentality" about how awful everyone treats the poor Mormons. Even if it's true in some cases, it's not helpful to you.Best of luck, and God bless you. PS I think you've been given some pretty wise counsel in this thread from many people, several of whom have stood in your shoes. Take it for what it's worth to you.

You Just Can't!!!!

What leads you to believe we haven't accepted that already? What do you think it means "to take the good with the bad"? Does it mean to remain silent while people act in despicable (if legal) ways? If so, what, if anything, would you say to the defilers? Would you likewise accuse them of non-acceptance? Don't those same "American values" you are promoting also protect a religious person's right to express disgust when someone mocks and debases symbols he finds important? Seriously, I can't figure out where you're coming from at all. Your observations make no sense in the context of this discussion.

Both. Mocking the religious beliefs of others is offensive, even if we think those beliefs are absurd. I certainly hope you stand alone in that. I often find the supposedly "mundane" to be miraculous, yet I still hope for people to be civilized and decent enough not to mock me for my beliefs. I agree that the idea of a weeping painting is absurd. I still think it is wrong and, frankly, downright uncivilized to mock it in such a manner.

You are wrong. I believe your point, such as it is, is invalid. This is not and never has been a contest of dueling web discussion sites.

Oh, you are vastly mistaken. I could well have given him a great deal more "reason". Instead, I did what he never did -- tried to engage him in intelligent and honest conversation.

No. Rather, he has proven himself to be exactly what some* predicted he would. *Aka Vort. Hardly. More like "told ya so". How do you think this is dueling sites? I care nothing about his site; I was merely noting that he had done exactly as predicted.

Which is it, MoE?

Thanks, MrSatan! Hey, I'm a Capricorn, too!

But seriously: Who could possibly have predicted it?

Excerpt from superdad69's web site writeup of this group: I was almost immediately attacked for my beliefs and the artwork on this site. I was stalked by a character only to be harassed at every turn. When I began to make headway in a conversation I was railroaded by a fellow service member of all people. It amazed me. But I guess this just goes to show the absolute brain washing these people and other Theists are suffering from. I will continue to write my unbiased report on what they believe eventually. I will be honest and factual. But NEVER will I engage these people in a serious discussion or debate on their ground again. They are always welcome here on the rock hard ground of science and I will debate them on those grounds. The bottom line is, as most of us know your "God" does not exist. They could not even begin to prove that he does. That is why they are taught NOT to debate people like me. It's even in their own scriptures and doctrines. It saddens me that the state of these people's brains are so shot they can't see how blind they really are acting. For some, it (their religious beliefs) may offer hope. To me, it offers absolute depression. More or less just what I expected from him. Not that being correct in my initial assessment of his character justifies my actions, but it is interesting to note that I was pretty much spot on.

Shameless bump!

It really makes me mad when someone makes me think. As is only logical.

In many school districts, this is grounds for termination.

Finishing this line of reasoning, let me ask: Was it reasonable for Vort to fly off the handle as he did? That is a completely separate question from whether it was logical, since reasoning encompasses much more than mere logic. Finally, was it right for Vort to fly off the handle? This, too is a completely separate question from whether Vort's reaction was (a) logical or (b) reasonable. The moral or ethical fitness of an action is independent of that action's logicality or reasonableness (though it may be related to both). Vort thinks that perhaps he will refer to himself in the third person from now on.

It's not a question of logic. Logic is used to draw correct inferences based on already-determined propositions. Human actions and reactions may perhaps be logically predicted, but that is different from saying such actions are logical. For example: Was it logical that I responded to your initial post as I did? Well, it was certainly logically predictable. Several things can be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty: In his original post, superdad69 claimed he did not wish to offend those here and guaranteed that on his web site, Christians (including Mormons) would not be disparaged.superdad69's web site contained material blatantly and obviously offensive to any believing Christian, including Latter-day Saints.Vort perceives someone to be a liar when he notices a marked discrepancy between that person's stated objectives, beliefs, or intents, and that person's actual actions.Vort tends to be very blunt and even insulting to those he considers liars, either face-to-face or online.Given the above set of conditions, could you have logically inferred that Vort might fly off the handle at superdad69's original post? Sure, you might have, had you known the above set of conditions. Now: Was it logical for Vort to fly off the handle at superdad69? That is an entirely separate question, far more difficult to determine. But ultimately, the answer is almost certainly, No, it was not logical. Do you see the difference? You ask if it is "logical" that other Christians get offended at our doctrine. No, there is nothing logical about it. That does not mean that one couldn't logically infer that, given the conditions that actually exist, many Christians might indeed get offended at the very existence of Mormonism and its beliefs. But saying that you might logically infer that they would get bent out of shape is much different from saying that it's logical for them to get bent out of shape.

Logic is a formal system of rational thought specifying how to obtain correct inferences. How do you think that deciding to attack someone about religion is a question of logic?

You look like him, too. Except for the broad shoulders. And the pink skin. And the blond hair. And the round ears. And the glasses. And the lack of uniform. But other than the things that don't look anything like Spock, you actually look a great deal like him.

The analogy was given from an LDS perspective; any non-LDS Christian would have rejected the analogy outright. But the analogy is just that. It is a parallel of the truth (from the LDS perspective), not the truth itself. When the analogy stops paralleling the truth, then it fails at that point. It is not hard to stretch an analogy into absurdity. "Well, the original house of Christianity still has porch boards that survive from the original structure! Some of the mildew growing in the original house is descended from mildew growing shortly after it was first built! The original house has been retrofitted for Wi-Fi!" Do such things even have meaning? At this point, it's no longer analogy, just blather. Logic has little to offer in such situations, as even atheists will quickly admit. Logic is simply a reasoning structure. If you use a syllogism within the bounds of its linguistic construction, it is useful only as long as your premises are valid. If all A are B, and if all B are C, then all A are C. This is a perfectly good logical syllogism. Is it true? Yes, it is true, so long as the premises "all A are B" and "all B are C" are true. For example: All cats are mammals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all cats are animals. But if either or both of the premises are false, the conclusion is false: All Mormons are Christians. All Christians are saved by Jesus. Therefore, all Mormons are saved by Jesus. You may debate which of the premises is flawed, but flawed premises lead to untenable conclusions -- EVEN WHEN THE LOGIC IS PERFECTLY SOUND. Note that it's possible to have a flawed premise, yet still be correct: Vort is my father. All fathers love their children. Therefore, Vort loves me. The fact that there is a flawed premise in the above syllogism invalidates the logical necessity of the conclusion, but does not invalidate the conclusion itself. This is a point often missed by those discussing logic. It's also perfectly possible to be illogical (not understanding the principles of logic), yet still be correct: Vort posts on a discussion list. Sometimes, people who post on a discussion list are wrong. Therefore, Vort is sometimes wrong. The fact that this is illogical does not mean that it is false, only that the logic fails.

At this point, the analogy fails. If the LDS Church is literally true -- if the Lord actually restored his Church through a modern prophet named Joseph Smith -- then no other system, religious or otherwise, offers any sort of salvation from death. This sense of exclusivity is built into the theology of the LDS Church, a fact recognized both within the Church and outside of it from the very beginning. More than perhaps anything else, it is this doctrine of exclusivity that makes "Mormonism" unpalatable to the vast majority of other religions, especially the nominally Christian religions. Given the great efforts over many centuries exerted by various Christian sects to arrive at a compromised consensus of doctrine and find a way to accept each other's baptisms, other rites, and very theology as common to all, the jarring claim of exclusive possession of truth sounds downright hubristic. Of course, the claims that God the Father and his Son are both corporeal beings, that they literally stood before Joseph Smith and talked with him, that Joseph Smith received literal divine revelation from their own lips and from other sources prepared by God for him, and that the modern LDS Church and its members continue to receive such literal, daily revelation and actually hold the literal Priesthood authority of Jesus Christ himself, do not endear Mormonism to them, either. But it's the exclusivity thing that really rankles.

Your analogy is flawed. Here is a better analogy: You build a house and name it "Christianity". This house has some characteristic features -- gabled roof, indoor plumbing, marble staircase -- that set it apart as being the Christian house. Over the years, the ownership changes things, tearing out the staircase and replacing it with a ladder, replacing the roof with a flat tin model, cutting up the plumbing and using it for talking between parts of the house. The change out the very foundation of the house, modifying it to their tastes. By the time they are done, the house of Christianity bears only a passing resemblance, if that, to your original. Later on, you decide to rebuild your house of Christianity. You don't bother acquiring the old house, of course, because retrofitting it would be basically impossible. Instead, you dig a foundation on a new plot of land and start building. You use materials originally used on the first house, and you build it using a plan very close to your original plan -- indoor plumbing, gabled roof, marble staircase. When you finish, you say, "Okay, there's the restored house of Christianity." The owners and occupants of the first house object. "THAT'S not the Christianity house!" they exclaim. "WE have the true house of Christianity! It was built HERE, on THIS spot! Look, here's an original wall! Here's some linoleum built with the house! Here's the original fireplace, or at least something built where the original fireplace was! That 'new' house of Christianity is nothing but a fraudulent and amateurish copy that uses a weird design and looks NOTHING like our real house of Christianity!" Which is the real house of Christianity? I contend that the new house, rebuilt on the same plan and with the same materials as the original, is the "real" house. The question comes down to this: If you are the true architect and builder of the original house of Christianity, did you in fact build the new house of Christianity? And did you in fact use the same basic plan and the same materials? If so, your rebuilt house is the "real thing". Otherwise, the vastly modified "original" is the "real thing", or else the "real thing" does not exist any longer, if it ever did.